Inside The Minds Of Anonymous Commenters
Blogging in a hurry this morning so apologies, but this article in last month’s Boston Globe makes for interesting reading on the mindset of their anonymous commenters (and they don’t like’em very much). It makes a nice follow-up to the previous post about the drive to enforce compulsory blandness and group-think conformity.
News websites from across the country struggle to maintain civility in their online comments forums. But given their anonymous nature and anything-goes ethos, these forums can sometimes feel as ungovernable as the tribal lands of Pakistan.
It goes on a bit but is worth a look if you’ve got five minutes and don’t mind being lectured that the mainstream media are determined to bring the anonymous party to an end however they can.
It always tickles me when people like that class a poster such as Grumpy Old Twat, for instance, as anonymous. Yes it’s a made up name but it is anchored to a website where the ‘offended’ can partake in a little retaliation, if they feel so inclined.
My point is this: If I were to log in to a site such as Terry Kelly’s, for example, and posted as Dr Gerald Watkins, would he readily accept me as a ‘real person’ then, even though I had no personal webspace?
The answer would probably be yes.
Oh, the hypocrisy of it all, eh 😉
Interesting points. Take ConservativeHome which has the widest mix of anon-to-named contributors I can think of.
You are likely to see regulars “Ultimo Tiger” and “Charles Tannock MEP” talking to each other quite happily in their own identities; one assumed and one real but both engaging genuinely. However we all assume that “Sally Roberts” really exists and is the older lady she claims to be rather than a fat teenage boy called Daz in his basement.
My good (real) friend John Smith would be shot down as a suspected troll if he tried to comment under his real name there – ironically he’d *have* to make something up.Â