Yesterday I expressed a wish that the death of that teenage suicide girl would forever remain on the minds of the two adults whose prank drove her to self-murder. A reader responded by sending this Wired article about how the spectacularly cruel behavior of the Drews, the couple in question, has sparked a frightening wave of Internet vigilantism. From the piece:
"When you have a bunch of people together all trying to achieve the same goal, the whole starts to take on a mind of its own," Solove says, "and people start to act in extreme ways that they might not otherwise act."It's no surprise that many people who posted Drew's name and personal details online have done so under a cloak of anonymity, with the exception of Wells and a few others.
"People don't mind doing (this kind of thing) as long as it doesn’t cost them anything, as long as there's very little risk of retribution," says Robert Kurzban, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of works on social exclusion and stigmatization. "But when people actually have to pay a cost to punish other people, they prefer not to do that."
We see that in comboxes, including this blog's comboxes. People operating under the cloak of anonymity say things to others that they would never say if their actual name were attached to it, or if the people they're criticizing were sitting in the room with them. The anonymity can be liberating in a positive way; sometimes you'll see a post in these comboxes from someone who writes as "Anonymous This Time," when he or she has something personal to disclose that adds to a discussion, but that's too personal to admit. But mostly I think it brings out the worst in people. I can think of times I've wanted to post on my own blog's comboxes under a fake name, to really tear into somebody. But I've not done so because I consider that deeply unethical (posting anonymously on your own blog's comboxes, as if you were someone else). And in the end, it's a good discipline for me: if I can't say it with my own name attached, I probably shouldn't be saying it at all.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
if I can't say it with my own name attached, I probably shouldn't be saying it at all. Rod Dreher
I couldn't agree more. But a few months ago, I did something incredibly stupid: I wrote some intemperate words - actually, I think the proper word would be "invective" - on my blog about some anti-social behaviour going on in my town. My description of the goings-on left enough clues as to the location of these people that people around here were able to identify those about whom I wrote. Feelings were badly hurt, the press were tipped off, and I was pummelled in public (on the radio and in the online print media) for a couple of days. It was one of the worst experiences of my life.
My new blog is more thoughtful (if less witty) and generally by invitation only - but it's written under a nom de cyber. My real name appears nowhere on it, although I talk about family members and trips, local events, etc. And despite my agreement with Rod's position, I don't see a situation where I would "out" myself. There is no way I am going to risk another run through a news cycle.
REP:
For myself, I've just had to accept that Rod is one of those bloggers who routinely blasts his own readers if they disagree with him. He himself admits he's hopelessly sarcastic.
At least I share that (and an admiration for his great writing skill) in common with him, even if we have nothing in common politically or religiously. Why else would he be a must-read given that he's zinged me many times (though not, I grant you, as severely as you)?
Recovering, Rod is one of the better bloggers in terms of moderation. It's all relative.
During my tenure as host on Bnet discussion boards, I was almost entirely anonymous to Bnet members, and I routinely got "feedback" from both extremes: I was a saint, or I was Satan. Now that I've defined (somewhat) my personal bias about such things, I really do see Rod as closest to a balanced moderator in his own blog.
That last is a key aspect. It is his sandbox, after all. I'm not saying don't be upset -- he's upset me more than once; I'm not saying go away either, or even to modify your style. I am saying that while you are rightly reacting to how you are treated, I see the full juggling act from a more objective perspective. To extend my metaphor, perhaps you are one of the balls he tends to drop more often than the others.
It's all relative, in my view. :-)
Half-full:
1) I'd rather see Donny's posts, and the usual lack of response to them, as a positive comment on how much his views are on the fringe.
2) I'd rather see Rod blast his readers, if only to show that he can be kept honest later on by referring him back to those blasts. I don't know about anyone else, but I see Rod as a basically honest and honorable man.
YMMV.
Those of us who peruse the blogs out there have a lot of respect for Rod, who runs one of the best. Not perfect, I didn't say that. But very very good.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.