- Ed Whelan exposed an anonymous blogger who'd been attacking him (and he - Whelan - later apologized for it) (anonymity and pseudonymous blogging will not really be the subject of this post. Just thought it was related, so I'd bring it up. For the record, I have little respect for anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers - especially issue/political bloggers - except for those who are sharing painful, personal situations for the purpose of helping others, and without asking a things for themselves and without attacking others, and would like to preserve their privacy. But that's it.)
- Video game company Electronic Arts, it was reported this week, created a fake "Christian protest" against one of its forthcoming games, centered on Dante's Inferno.
- As I alluded to in another post, a blog that had burst on the scene a few months ago, purportedly by the expectant mother of a baby with Trisomy 13, was revealed to be a total fraud and scam this week.
Random thoughts on the latter two points:
The EA gambit doesn't surprise me one bit. I am sure the internet - and beyond - is full of such efforts. I've said it here again and again, in relation, for example, to comments boxes. Put it this way: when someone comments on a blog or website, there is no reason to believe that they are who they say they are or that they really believe what they are saying, and that they are not acting for one reason or another. It's like fake racist attacks. You want to make your ideological opponents look bad, so you comment in the guise of said opponent, writing the most extreme, hateful garbage as a way of remotely discrediting that viewpoint. It happens all the time. That's why I would never use internet forums or comments boxes as evidence of what "pro-lifers are saying" or what "pro-choicers are saying" or what "gay marriage proponents or opponents are saying."
The worst? The comments boxes on newspaper articles. Time and time again, they have proven themselves the most useless, unenlightening collection of inanity, some of it sincere, some it undoubtedly faked for one reason or another. It's performance art on a social scale.
The last incident interests me the most, because it brings together the world of Mommyblogging and Christian blogging and pro-life blogging.
There's a Chicago Tribune article on the incident here, but many are strongly questioning even that, saying the reporter was taken in by the young woman who started the blog, even here.
For the best summary of the situation, you might look at this post, which has links to other blogs that have sprung up this week debunking the April Rose blog.
One of the best reflections on this last situation has been written by Nathan Lawrenson, whose blog, Confessions of a CF Husband, is one that I've followed for a couple of years now - Nathan's wife Tricia, has CF (obviously). She was on track for a lung transplant, when she discovered she was pregnant, delivered the baby, had the transplant - all of which has been documented by Nate with humor, great photography, deep faith, and a generous spirit - continually directing readers' desire to help, not to his own personal situation (except with prayers), but to CF charities and the needs of others. Oh, and honesty. He writes of warning signs:
> The author uses an alias and/or refuses to post his/her real name or other personal info like hometown, names of hospitals, etc. Both of the fake blogs I have experience with had authors who either refused to post their real name, or often used an alias when posting. It's one thing to use nicknames for your wife or your kids or your friends, but it's another thing to not want people to know your real, full name. Again, blogging tends to attract people who don't mind some of their basic personal info being displayed to the world.
Personally speaking, we have been very open about our story, using pictures and much of our personal information. Our story has also been well documented in news papers and on television, and we have met countless blog readers in person who would be more than happy to vouch for our existence. Although we do atempt to protect our privacy to some degree, we have always welcomed a certain level of publicity for several reasons, not the least of which being to give ourselves some credibility should anyone (and some have tried) attack our integrity.
> There are multiple anonymous people authoring (posting) the blog. Both of the fake blogs I have experience with had multiple authors/posters. And, as it turned out, each of the scammers had also, to some extent, scammed the other author(s) of their own blog into believing their story and posting for them. Obviously the scammer realizes he/she is creating a web of lies, and it appears to me that, to use multiple authors gives the scammer a false sense of security and authenticity.
> The blog asks for money/donations of some kind that directly benefit the blogger.
On a personal note, before my blog became so popular, I had a link on my sidebar that asked for people to consider donating to Tricia's health care trust fund. Shortly after the blog exploded, however, I decided that it would be best for us not to use this blog to ask for personal financial support because 1) I determined that was not the purpose of this blog, 2) I knew it would turn some people off from reading our story, and 3) I didn't want our asking for personal financial support to come back and bite us in the butt. In fact, a year ago, when a popular CF related blog that I had linked to was found to be fake, several people (read trolls) began, very publicly, pointing fingers at me, accusing me of scamming people because I was also constantly asking for personal financial support...fortunately, several of my level headed blog readers also pointed out that had not been asking for any personal financial support for several months, and wisdom and truth prevailed.
Without a doubt, money is one of the biggest reasons these fake bloggers get into it. Both of the scammers that I have experienced asked for personal donations or gifts.So, yeah, buyer and reader beware. I obviously am not an Internet-hater in any way, and see it is a powerful means for forging connections. It's real. But as with anything, we have to be careful. Fakes are everywhere, in every social group, including churches, and the internet just makes it easier to fake it. So maybe instead of screaming about abortion or whatever your cause is online all day, go down to the local CPC and, you know... help. Pray for and assist others whose stories you read on the Internet, but more importantly, connect with your local parish and community...and go face-to-face and...help.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
As I've said elsewhere -- the Internet and dialup BBSes were heavily influenced by the use of "handles" on CB radio in the 1970's. Science fiction fandom, an older small geeky world, also loved fanciful nicknames (which largely replaced people's real names in many cases) and pseudonyms, and pretty much all the offshoot hobbies did the same thing. A lot of people just enjoy talking to each other more if they can pick their own names. Don't ask me why; it's easier to feel than explain. And certainly there've always been a wide variety of clubs that do the same, not to mention renaming practices associated with religion.
Honestly, it's not the people who call themselves Spaceman712 or Raven Moonblood who tend to be the annoying ones. (Although sometimes they're trolls.) People doing the Munchausen thing or the deliberate congame usually tend to give themselves ordinary, realistic names -- and they never even hint that these are pseudonyms.
Re: personal info -- Often someone studying to deceive is very free with personal information. They may well write an entire saga's worth of detail. It's just not anything particularly useful for verification.
Re: multiple sock puppets - True. Re: financial requests -- True, but of course many honorable people also ask for donations.
Forgot to say that a lot of people living totally faked lives never do ask for money. Either there's a psychological thing going on, and they just want respect or sympathy; or they really do want to con people, but the reward is purely that of "winning" a game or forwarding ideological goals. I think both kinds of people crave intimacy but are afraid to try for it as themselves.
Science fiction fandom, an older small geeky world
Who are you calling old?
Isn't the 1930's the time when dinosaurs roamed? :)
I've been thinking about the Munchausen folks I've met. A lot of times, it does seem to run in tandem with a certain kind of brilliance -- quick thinking, dazzling, not necessarily very deep. The "not necessarily" part is where the insecurity comes in. Sometimes they are very aggressive about trying to prove they are smarter and cooler than anyone else. There was one guy who would switch back and forth between languages at you -- basic phrases, but he had learned to speak them very quickly. I think this was why you ran into them so much in the early days of the Internet going wide.
Anyway, they tend to want to make it all about them, all the time. They think nobody will like them unless they are the coolest person you have ever met. Even a relatively harmless case will take over your mailing list with tales of all their amusing adventures they're always having. Often, they really are good storytellers; sometimes they manage to switch to just writing regular fiction stories.
Patrick O'Brien probably wasn't a Munchausen person per se, but he ended up "reinventing himself" by lying about pretty much every facet of his life and making up extremely convincing stories of his past. The fact that he was also one of the world's great writers didn't seem to stop him from wanting to impress people even more.
A couple of good reasons for internet anonymity are to prevent identity theft and to avoid getting fired. It is all well and good to have a controversial political blog in your own name if you are already a journalist or writer. If you have some other profession, it could be a career-limiting move.
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.