Discussion on:

The case of anonymity in social media

I have the right to say what I please, on any topic I please. I have that right because I choose to claim and exercise it. I have the right to express myself without fear of the local villagers marching up to my gate with their torches and farm implements, and that requires anonymity, which I also claim as my right.

Far better a forum where some are offended than one where no one dare speak. I am, by the way, often offended - easily and profoundly. When I am offended I take comfort in the data published in my ephemeris. This shows me over and over again that, no matter how offended any of us may be, the sun will continue to rise and set at the expected time - thus demonstrating the relative impact of our sensitivity on the universe.

Get some perspective. Is it more important that the forum operator (or operator's employer) know who I am or that they know what I have to say?

-------
It's not my job to prove the world is round - it's my job to help the Flat-Earthers find the edge.

No one, including social media sites, is obligated to provide anyone a forum, anonymous or otherwise.

Further, no one is immune from the consequences of their actions. If you express pro-slavery opinions, the local groceries are not obligated to continue stocking your barbeque sauce.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=20040317&id=okQfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P9AEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6474,649936

The local villagers can't burn your castle, but they don't have to continue doing business with you.

Very good - a valid observation. The right to speak does not include the right to be heard.

One accepts the consequences of their speech by the act of speaking, much like accepting the terms of use of a web site by accessing it.

The villagers, however, are enjoined from entering upon my premises, and can - freely and without further obligation - make and use their own forum. And barbeque sauce.

(I have, by the way, had occasion to shop in a Piggly-Wiggly. That tangent would spawn a whole other thread (rolling of eyes). )
--------------------
Niggardly is not a racial slur; picayunish is not a religion; theodolites do not live in caves.

Who says John Smith from texas is real? Why does he care if some random group on the internet thinks he is a racist?

But assuming we could force everyone to use their real names, would that really help matters? People might not use racial slurs as much but they'd still have the same beliefs. They'd still broadcast their stereotypes and insult people in a more "civil" manner. And they'd have more ways to harass suzy lou who had the gall to publicly disagree with them.

Personally I'd rather read a few vulgar words than walk into a web of thinly veiled ignorance. The real name of anyone on a forum doesn't matter to me, it shouldn't matter.

I don't care if posts are anonomous or signed, but I will not post using Facebook. The newspaper should have their own post registry or allow guest posts asking for real names. In the past I am sure letters were submitted to the editor signed with a false name to conceal identity, but that does not necessarily invalidate the validity of the letter (or a post). The crud can easily be filtered out by and editor. Facebook discourages many from posting.