anonymous, unverifiable, but authoritative?

In a comment to my post about the practical problems of constitutional issues, Veeshir stressed the importance of anonymity,

We've come full circle back to when it was best for your gov't to not know your name.

Our only defense is anonymity.

The right to anonymity is an important right, and fortunately, it is constitutionally protected. Anonymity (and I include pseudonymity) can be a two edged sword, though. In voting, it is of paramount importance. Where it comes to the sharing of ideas and experiences, though, one of the problems with anonymity is that credibility tends to suffer. This might not matter in the context of pure idea sharing, because arguments stand or fall based on their factual accuracy and soundness of the thinking involved. The actual identity of an anonymous critic (or supporter) of government policies or global warming theory would make no difference if his argument is, say, based on the contention that the numbers don't add up, and he explains why, because these things can be independently verified. But once a claim is based on his particular experience, or special knowledge or inside position (whether in the government, the military, academia, etc.), the argument is weakened, because there is no way to verify any of it.

This is just as true of anonymous bloggers as it is of anonymous commenters. I don't care how long someone has been blogging, how articulate or how many readers he or she has, none of that invests an anonymous blogger with the kind of personal credibility that comes from independent verifiability. The only checks and balances on anonymous bloggers is when they are unmasked, as a man calling himself "Libertarian Girl" discovered:

One thing I learned from this blog is how easy attractive woman have it. When I had a blog as my real self, no one linked to me, no one left any comments, it was as if the blog existed in a vacuum. But things were different for Libertarian Girl. Every day I'd check Technorati and discover new unsolicited links. It was like I had warped into an alternate universe where all the rules had changed. At the rate things were happening, this would have been an A-list blog in a few more months.

It's funny how there have been some posts in the blogosphere saying that the political blogosphere was a boys club that discriminated against women, as evidenced by how few politics bloggers were women. Boy were they completely off the mark. It's ten times easier for a woman's blog to become popular.

Human nature being what it is, bloggers suffer from a natural temptation to do whatever is necessary get hits and links, and in that sense, anonymous bloggers like "Libertarian Girl" have a huge advantage. I can't claim to be a woman, because I am writing under my name and people know me. The best I could do was a frivolous satirical claim that I was a pre-post operative sex change.
what I'm wondering right now is why I can't be a pre-post-operative female-to-male transsexual trapped in the body of a man, but who, because of pure luck, has no need to go through with the surgery, because I already have male anatomical features (i.e., a woman who wants to become a man but who is by accident of birth already trapped in the body of a man). It would be a terrible hardship (a cruel travesty, even) to make me surgically become a man trapped in the body of a woman who wants to become a man because the man is trapped in her body, if I can shortcircuit the entire process and merely accept the fact that I am already where I would be after surgery back and forth.
Now, that was in 2005, and even though I realized how ridiculous I was being, that did not stop the ACLU from filing suit on behalf of another lesbian trapped in a man's body. (I'd sue the ACLU for infringement, except that the lesbian-trapped-in-man's-body idea seems to be in the public domain.)

Anyway, the fact that there's no way to verify whether an anonymous woman is actually a man highlights a serious problem which arises when anonymous bloggers make factual claims based on unverifiable life experiences, or offer opinions based on their personal claims of expertise or superiority.

There's that old rule that when something looks too good to be true, it usually is. I think that applies in spades to anonymous bloggers who say what people want to hear.

posted by Eric on 01.03.10 at 12:46 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9206






Comments


"Anonymous, unverifiable, but authoritative?"

Well, yes...as long as you have your "followers". It's your "followers" that give you the authority to influence their thoughts, opinions and behaviors.

If you disagree, may I suggest you take a look at just how well another "verifiable person", President Obama, is doing, as his "followers" are having second thoughts.

And then there is GOD, who as far as I know, is NOT a "verifiable person", but he still has his cadre of "followers" from multiple religions spanning the globe.

Penny   ·  January 3, 2010 07:06 PM

anonymity which is psudonymity, only without a fake name, is valuable when expressing opinions.

The ONE time, I have made a direct attack on someone, I surrendered my anonymity, because it was only fair because I attacked someone directly, and they shared their name, and it was only right for me to share my name.

In all other cases I use the silence of anonymity, in fact, I rarely voice my opinion at all.

If you attack a person personally you should share your name (which I have done once) so that they have the same weapons that you are wielding against them. However, there are few people with scruples, so I don't do that anymore.

At least not often.

I really don't know how to respond, is what I'm saying, having used way too many words.

The very few times I have shared my actual name has almost always lead to me regretting it, because there was always someone who wasn't willing to share their name to dig crap up, and attack.

Meanwhile I can't be anything but honorable and allow for a level battlefield if engaged in an argument.

It sucks, so I just don't do it anymore.

Douglas   ·  January 4, 2010 02:05 AM

What most people fail to realize is that the
people in the government don't care.Their
attitude is they are the gentry,who have the cops and judges to enforce their money-grapping polices.The government is like the little weanie who has the bully enforcing his will.A Napoleon complex-except Napoleon was a super talented military genius- these
beaucrats are those guys who have Gort the Robot ready to kill anyone..

GREG newsom   ·  January 4, 2010 04:11 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


January 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits