This is specifically for Emmett, who posted this in the "Cheap Thrills" thread a few months back (and who had one of the only thought-provoking posts in said thread):



Looks like we will get our chance to find out how our net freedoms are bound with anonymity. My guess, if history is an indicator of the probable future, is that we will be looking back fondly at the good old days in which folks could have a nice argument or flame war without having their exact identity pinpointed... that they could host websites critical of the government with an alias, that they could speak with impunity without fear of reprisal. Alas, once again, our controllers in government seek to change that.

To answer Emmett's question directly, I would state flatly that the internet represents the last bastion of a free press in a world in which it is too hazardous to utter critical, opposing views. Anonymous speech surely encompasses a jungle of filth we do not like or want, but is the only way we can ensure our total freedom to communicate any and all ideas without the fear of a poisonous, politically correct environment... or worse, as millions of Chinese men and women would tell you if they had the freedom (possibly via anonymous internet connection) to do so.

Check out this link:

http://www.tgdaily.com/opinion-features ... -say-in-it

Emmett, I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions on this, and any other members' thoughts as well.

Kev

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.

Oscar Wilde

Internet anonymity as a "last bastion" of communication without fear? Seems a grim freedom, speaking out from a hiding place.

And to Oscar Wilde, if he were still wild, I'd say (quoting myself), "Unmask the whole person and he will demonstrate the truth that he lives."

I agree with Emmett. Signing your name to something you feel strongly about shows depth of character. A personal rule... if I have to shroud my identity before I say something, chances are it shouldn't be said.

Building the character of a community takes place one person at a time, and if ever there was a time for men and women (and therefore communities) of great character, it's now.

Samuel

A flame war in my opinion is the least constructive way to differ in opinion.

Consider this - if a grocery store cart was equipped with a horn, would you use it (and your middle finger) if someone cut you off in the produce isle? I'd argue that most of us wouldn't.

It is way too easy to be an anonymous asshole...and somehow impossible to be accountable for ones own words.

I am a scientist by profession. I think it is notable that peer review in all scientific journals is anonymous. It allows fellow scientists to nit-pick the work of colleagues without having to be accountable for their critique of the work under review.

Although if a person is hiding their identity when they tell you something, you can not be sure if they are telling the truth or not, there are places in this world where to speak your mind can be incredibly dangerous. [Half the postcard sellers in Tiananmen Square are secret police - allegedly]


In the not too distant past the grimmest aspect of speaking out was uttering your last words in front of a firing squad. Europe 1939 - 1945. We have not come so far as a race since then that the ability to speak from a hiding place is no longer needed.

I am not being paranoid here. There are political prisoners in every country in the world. It is a matter of your own politics as to whether they are terrorists or freedom fighters. [or maybe just crazy!] The anonymity afforded by the internet allows some people the freedom to speak out in a way they could never do otherwise.

I think the point is that if the internet becomes bound to the traceability of all users [which in many ways it already is, it is only those who know how to hide their trail who are really anonymous. Here in the UK, every phone call, text message and probably email can be accessed at GCHQ under anti terror laws] then everybody will have to think twice before they speak out against any authority if that authority has a vested interest in suppressing what they have to say.

This is much bigger than a few childish minds hiding behind an avatar so they can stir up debate in some forum or other. This is about Governments having the power to halt the dissemination of information they disagree with. Would you want to live in a world where half the library books are locked in a vault, where you are not allowed access to information and therefore not allowed to make up your own mind about it. Or even worse not being able to say,
"Hey I had this idea, what do you people think about it?"

That's a very deep, different and true point of view Surfindogg! I think when we on the forum speak of this (especially if we're from the USA) we're refering to punks and bullies causing trouble in forums because we can't put a face to the words more than the deeper aspects you brought up about how free speach in some places can literally get you killed!

Free speach here is totally taken for granted.

The right to free speech in America was hard won 1776 and all that. Kicked us Brits out for good

I think the fact that it is taken for granted is half the problem. In the words of Joni Mitchell:

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone

And just for Kev re free farmers:

Put away that DDT now
Give me spots on my apples
But leave me the birds and the bees
Please!

And talking of bees, they can't speak out:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/save_the_be ... 299&v=8114

Hi Surfindogg,

Governments may also be monitoring people's anonymous communications. It's been reported that the Iranian government tracked people via their tweets and used informants to identify people at protests in photographs that were published outside Iran. I don't know if this is true, (it could just be a very clever scare tactic), but it points to the imperfect nature of anonymity as well.

In the case of forums like this, freedom of speech is well-established. I'm pretty certain that the only thing that has been censored from this forum has been totally off-topic spam. Under these circumstances, if we are not willing to identify ourselves when openly criticising someone, then it looks like we only have a negative agenda, and are simply not willing to bear the responsibility for throwing stones at easy targets.

I'm not saying anonymity is wrong, just that it encourages a lack of objectivity, and is easily exploited for nefarious purposes (governments pretending to be sympathetic in order to lure dissidents, or companies pretending to be customers looking for information and then responding to themselves, whatever you can imagine).

The difference between Emmett's use of the name BSharp and, say, this person's use of the name Trevor James is that in Emmett's case he signs his real name at the end of his posts and isn't trying to create a new persona for himself. Emmett stands by what he writes with the totality of his life and experience behind him.

Since it's such a good illustration of how blurred identity works on the internet, here's more "Trevor James":

http://videoforward.com/profile.php?profile=127
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 902AABxtw3
http://chapmanstickmegatarcomparison.co ... rr-guitar/
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Incident- ... id=3179903
http://hubpages.com/hub/Chapman-Stick-T ... the-Future
http://www.blogger.com/profile/02492038973515502686

This is where the anonymity of the internet fails to really inform, you may not know who the person is, even if they seem to be identifying themselves. I'm not saying people who post anonymously are necessarily trying to deceive people, but when you read an anonymous post, you should always consider that it's a real possibility.

In every instance unless you are willing to back up your post with who you really are and honestly explain why you are writing, then you are only a "vote", and not an "illuminator."

I write this from personal experience, having posted on Tappistry under a pseudonym and then realizing that the power of the message could only come from its credibility, not its content. Once I identified myself, I found the discussion definitely was more productive. Ultimately there's no benefit to it, and it can make you feel sneaky.

Better to be completely open.

Surfindogg,

I'm glad you understand this issue, and what is at stake. It is, in fact, part of the Patriot Act legislation which authorizes the federal government to monitor and track the personal library records of anyone suspected of wrongdoing in this country.



Greg, I'm not sure this makes such a good case for legislation making it easier for the free world to behave in a similar manner. You are correct that it is better to post with your true identity... on such a forum as this. But this is a broader issue, one which MANDATES such protocols. My question remains: is this a good idea?

I remember your anonymity. I remember it was better that you identified yourself. I believe political dissent is of far more importance to the government, as opposed to a music forum which is of no consequence at all. That is the difference here.

All people should comport themselves in all aspects of their lives, be truthful always... and Emmett signs his name as most of us do, as we have no reason to do otherwise. But would we do the same if our lives/freedom depended on the dissemination of a truth incovenient or dangerous to our government?



Emmett,

Freedom is always grim, and you never know whence it speaks. Should there be no hiding places, then? That is the essence of my point.

I do not believe such an unmasking will reveal anything but deafening silence. Ask the North Korean people. If you can.

Kev