Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site normac.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!amd!dual!zehntel!normac!scott
From: scott@normac.UUCP (Scott Bryan)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Objection to annonymous postings
Message-ID: <112@normac.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 03:55:23 EST
Article-I.D.: normac.112
Posted: Fri Nov 16 03:55:23 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Nov-84 03:18:46 EST
Reply-To: scott@unix.UUCP (Scott Bryan)
Organization: Normac, Lafayette, Ca.
Lines: 99
Summary: We need a new type of news program

An interesting problem ... (help! net programmers, Help!)

Ed Hall (E:), in a recent net.news.group article, states:
E: ... one very good reason for anonymous postings is the ability to
E: make sensitive self-revelations.  Another, perhaps less-justifiable
E: one is a posting from someone whose does not want their employer/
E: administrator to know about it.
E: In both cases anonymous postings can contribute to freedom of speech [sic]
E: without any malicious intent or effect whatever. 

W. Christensen (W:), (I think ...) replies 
apollo.uucp (Wendy Alberts) [same person?!?]

W: I am opposed to anonymous postings.
W: I feel very strongly that if you think you want to post something to
W: the net, but you don't want your employer or administrator to know
W: about it, you simply shouldn't post it at all.

The reasons she lists: [I condensed it a bit]

1) ... there are other methods and modes of communicating ...
   completely independent of this net.
[irrelevant]

2) ... your employer/administrator is, in most cases, providing you
   with the opportunity to use the net in the first place. It seems quite
   underhanded, ungrateful, and highly inappropriate to abuse that
   opportunity by posting articles you or your employer/administrator
   might be ashamed of, or for which you have any reason to fear possible
   repercussions (legal, social, or other).
[but there are constructive uses for being anonymous]

3) If you have something to say, say it well and take the responsibility -
   identify yourself!
[responsible views can be expressed anonymously]

4) I also maintain that a public, worldwide computer bulletin board
   network is hardly the forum in which to make "sensitive
   self-revelations," anonymously or otherwise.
[a definite cost, see below]

5) ... many netters may very well bitterly regret some of their public
   soul-searching (which, in some cases, borders on exhibitionism)
   [when] they seek employment, academic contacts, etc., ...
   The ability to post articles anonymously does NOT solve
   this problem - it exacerbates it by legitimatizing excesses and
   irresponsibility which should never appear on the net anyway.
[what about the netters that are using the net to advertise their eloquence?
I don't care much for them either... being forced to be anonymous might
help to ease the swelling of their heads]

W's summary:
W: While realizing the futility of protecting people from themselves,
W: everyone should work together to make the net an environment in which
W: common sense, intelligence, and moderation prevail.


Perhaps the problem we are really discovering here is that the
communication mechanism provided by the network doesn't seem to work
very well for discussing complex philosophical and social issues.

It was designed to carry notices, distributions, and support limited
discussions of specific technical issues.  For these purposes it
works quite well.  Anonymous postings in those contexts is clearly
ridiculous.

The problem is that people like to discuss complex philosophical
issues.  Especially the sort of people in the research industry.
That's their job.  I expect the more experienced managers know this
very well and put up with the bit of "bad" to get the bit of "good"
that comes with it.  They will continue to do so as long as the revenue (the
technical benefits of this network) continues to outweigh the phone
bills.

Obviously, Ed feels that there are discussions going on about very
personal, socially polarizing issues.  It seems logical to me that
there are cases where one might want to remain anonymous in discussing
an issue, for example abortion (perhaps only to conceal their sex).

I see no good reason for disallowing particular topics simply because
they are "too personal" or "non-technical".  I do agree that the
current technology makes discussing issues (like the one I'm discussing
now) VERY difficult and that it would be very nice if someone came up
with a new type of newsgroup where everyone was editing the same
message (well something like that).  Hopefully someone will find a way to
do this before the net collapses under the weight of all that rhetoric.

Until the technology arrives it is probably a moot point.  It would be
pretty difficult using the current software to get away with many
anonymous postings if anyone cared to track you down.

Perhaps we could start a newsgroup to design the kind of news software
we would need to discuss complex social issues like abortion.  Something
that would reduce the traffic my keeping some sort of skeleton for the
discussion in progress in at each site and letting people pick away at it,
reformulating issues, voting on propositions, submitting rebuttals, etc.
Any ideas? (forget modeling it after our government!)

normac.UUCP