Suggestion Petition to remove the Anonymous account

I would like to see TAZ disable the use of the Anonymous accountr.

I see no reason for any forum to perpetuate the ability for members to post behind the mask of an Anonymous account.

Those who use it do so out of cowardice.

Those who attempt to debate any issue with someone hiding as Anonymous cannot reasonably evaluate the credentials of the person hiding.

I don't know why this was implemented in the first place but I would suggest that the negatives to continuing its use far outweigh any positives there might ever have been at one the time it was put in place.

 

I'm with djbaxter on this one - if you have to hide then you have something to hide. If you are a poster whose views and opinions are controversial and can expect a lot of feedback (positive or negative) and you defend your views and opinions in a rational and well thought out manner, then regardless of the flack if you are true to your views and opinions (and to yourself) then there is nothing to hide. If, on the other hand, you cannot debate your stance effectively and you are terrified of the backlash - don't post.

I know that not all of my own views and opinions are viewed in a favourable light, but I defend my stance until proven wrong; if I am proven to be wrong then I will be the first to hold my hands up and admit it, but until such a point is reached I will defend what I have to say and roll with the punches.

We all have views and opinions and if we cannot share them publicly with (what we like to believe are) like minded people and debate them in a civilised manner then we are all losers and nobody wins. So I voted no to the anonymous posting feature.

 

Did you ever see the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation entitled The Drumhead?

Relevant section of dialogue:

WORF: He refused to answer the question about his Romulan grandfather.
PICARD: That is not a crime, Worf. Nor can we infer his guilt because he didn't respond.
WORF: Sir, if a man were not afraid of the truth, he would answer.
PICARD: Oh, no. We cannot allow ourselves think that. The Seventh Guarantee is one of the most important rights granted by the Federation. We cannot take a fundamental principle of the Constitution and turn it against a citizen.
WORF: Sir, the Federation does have enemies. We must seek them out.
PICARD: Oh, yes. That's how it starts. But the road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think. Something is wrong here, Mister Worf. I don't like what we have become.

While the situation is markedly different the core tenet is not: just because someone may appear to have something to hide does not mean that is the reason they are hiding, and people who may have nothing to hide may still hide anyway and that should not be presumed to infer anything. Already I've seen speculation as to who is posting - and all too often messages get shouted down because of who is saying it rather than what is being said.

In fact the anonymity of forums is one of their single greatest strengths; it's no different to making a disposable account to post the message in a way that can't be traced back to its poster, and means that whatever point being made can safely be made without it being influenced by perceptions about the poster.

 

1st of all wow... I tend to be of the 'agree' camp.
I mean.... The myriad of times that I could have cowed towards the Anonymous posting LOL. But eh... Kinda difficult fake disguising my writing style LOL.

2nd:

Well said dude!

J.

 

I guess you've never had your comments ignored just because it was you saying them - irrespective of what you were saying. Too many times I've seen discussions flow where a person suggests something, is castigated for it, then I or someone else suggested the exact same thing in a slightly different way and been lauded as inspired - because it wasn't that person saying it.

 

Yes I did see it and the young ensign who was not guilty of what was being suggested did have something to hide - his grandfather was Romulan and the ensign knew that if he admitted so he would not be allowed to join starfleet. So there are two sides to that story and it does illustrate how someone can be castigated without knowing the full facts - something similar happening in another thread here on TAZ.

 

The point is still valid: even people who don't have something to hide sometimes still hide, and refusal to answer such things should not infer suspicion.

 

Perhaps true. Well... Absolutely true in my own personal experience.
But should that be an excuse to hide behind a wall hurling blocks of text? I don't think so
J.

 

Ah, so you've never actually experienced the social phenomenon of having your viewpoint excluded solely because it's you saying it. (Technology notwithstanding)

I assure you, it colours your perspective when it does happen to you.

Absolutely it should. If you know ahead of time that simply who you are will affect your ability to have your view expressed, surely you'd level that particular playing field?

This is nothing new societally - there's a reason in the early Star Trek episodes, D. C. Fontana is credited as D. C. Fontana rather than Dorothy Fontana because we can't have women writing sci-fi, but reduce it to an initial and it doesn't bias it.

Or the commentary in Dogma from Chris Rock's character about how the teachings of Jesus are wonderful but Jesus is always implied to be white (except that given the place of his birth, there's no way he would be) - and suddenly it's a problem. Something about getting how "a black guy can steal your stereo but he can't be your saviour". The identity of the speaker is part of how the speech is interpreted and sometimes a highly inconvenient truth.

Identity politics are complicated and who the person is dramatically affects how their points are made, and oftentimes to the detriment of whatever point is being made. Only today I saw an article in the Guardian about buskers. It's a fairly tongue-in-cheek read but I guarantee if it had had my name against it rather than the author's, there would have been a very different set of vitriol in the comments, just because it's not a famous celebrity but some nobody.

Most of the time people should absolutely own their comments - but there is always room for comments made without the same ownership implied, so that they can be heard with far more neutrality than they would otherwise garner.

 

Save some for me.

 

Actually I have. Many times. Too many to count. A multiple-daily occurrence actually.
And yet I dare to open my mouth to share my viewpoint LOL... Bravery of sorts or just bolden naivete shrouded in a cloak of IDGAF? Who knows...

Eh... I'm all about leveling playing fields please believe me.
But I'm no coward and as far as self expression is concerned ==> I'll say what I please, when and where and however I have the notion to express it.
It's called being true to yourself. No need to hide. I thought you might have known that I came busting out of the closet many many years ago LOL

J.

 

Sorry, that part was a reply to djbaxter, then your post came in.