Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Objection to annonymous postings Message-ID: <1875@nsc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 15:41:23 EST Article-I.D.: nsc.1875 Posted: Mon Nov 19 15:41:23 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Nov-84 07:27:48 EST References: <> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) Organization: The Bistro Lines: 125 Summary: wendya@apollo.uucp (Wendy Alberts) writes: > >Ed Hall, in a recent net.news.group article, states: >> Agreed; one very good reason for anonymous postings is the ability to >> make sensitive self-revelations. Another, perhaps less-justifiable >> one is a posting from someone whose does not want their employer/ >> administrator to know about it. >> In both cases anonymous postings can contribute to freedom of speach [sic] >> without any malicious intent or effect whatever. > >I am opposed to annonymous postings. > >I feel very strongly that if you think you want to post something to the net, >but you don't want your employer or administrator to know about it, you simply >shouldn't post it at all. For one thing, there are other methods and modes of >communicating your thoughts/ideas, completely independent of this net. Maybe >one of these would be more appropriate and comfortable. (This covers everything >from private email or phone calls to letters to the editor, pamphlets dropped >by the thousands from airplanes, skywriting, etc.) The problem with using alternative forms of communication is simply that they don't reach the same audience that posting to the network does. Most anonymous postings I've seen as moderator of mod.singles are replies on subjects being discussed on the net-- The only two ways of getting your feelings back in that situation is to have the moderator post it anonymously or to mail it to original poster. The latter case, unless the original poster posts it for you, means that most people don't see what you say. >But, another, more >important, objection, is that 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). > >If you have something to say, say it well and take the responsibility - >identify yourself! Some people don't have that opportunity. Certain places such as Universities sometimes restrict netnews to read-only for students to minimize excessive volume of postings. Worse, some institutions restrict the content of postings-- we have documented cases of people getting in serious trouble because certain people at a site disagreed with something that was posted. People in a paranoid environment learn quickly that posting certain discussions isn't a good idea-- anonymous postings allow them to get around that when used properly. In a fair environment most of the need for anonymous postings is obviated-- unfortunately we aren't even close to that in reality. One of the first strong reasons for anonymous postings was net.motss, where some people were afraid of retribution if they came out of the closet. While it is hoped that usenet is above the petty bigotry of the rest of the world, it isn't always the case, unfortunately. >I also maintain that a public, worldwide computer bulletin board network is >hardly the forum in which to make "sensitive self-revelations," annonymously >or otherwise. I suspect that, at some time in the not-too-distant future, >many netters may very well bitterly regret some of their public soul-searching >(which, in some cases, borders on exhibitionism). Probably, but at the same time, many of these same people have been helped by people on the net to resolve some of their personal problems-- either by others on the net who care about them, or simply because getting it into the open allows them to deal with it themselves. That's a personal choice that each person makes-- how open to be on what is essentially a large party line. >As they seek employment, >academic contacts, etc., these netters may find, to their utter and permanent >chagrin, that a possibly bizarre and often quite undesirable reputation has >preceded them. The ability to post articles annonymously does NOT solve this >problem - it exacerbates it by legitimatizing excesses and irresponsibility >which should never appear on the net anyway. While realizing the futility of >protecting people from themselves, everyone should work together to make >the net an environment in which common sense, intelligence, and moderation >prevail. Good luck-- these things happen, of course. I'm always keeping an eye out for resumes with names of people I recognize and respect off the net. Realistically, it takes a lot more for me to remember a name I DON'T want to hire off the net. Posting anonymously isn't a one person situation, there is usually someone like a moderator involved as well, and I know that I'm a lot more critical about the appropriateness of an anonymous posting (and why it is being posted anonymously) than I am about normal postings. It isn't legitimatizing excesses and irresponsibility, it is shifting the responsbility somewhat to someone other than the author-- the poster or moderator. Most anonymous articles I've seen tend to be even better thought out than regular articles. >On a related subject of somewhat lesser importance... >I also object to the gratuitous alteration of header information, even when >such alteration seems innocuous or just silly, rather than indicating any >real attempt to conceal one's true identity. >Examples: (Leo Buscaglia @ your nearest bookstore) > (Dish of the Day @ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe) > (? @ inside a linked list) that question mark is 'flidais', BTW. As someone who does modify header information, I'm irritated by your use of the word 'gratuitous'. Any feature can and will be used to excess, but I have very valid reasons for using 'Cheshire Chuqui' @ 'The Bistro' (or whatever I'm using this week) instead of 'Chuq Von Rospach' @ 'National Semiconductor'. First, I'm disassociating myself from national because a lot of my work on the net is mine, not National's, and the opinions and time are mine. I don't want my screwups and blunders to be taken as negative inferences on National as much as possible-- I won't be completely successful until I get onto my own machine, of course, but until then I do what I can. the other reason is that I feel that the personalizing touch says something about me, and anything I can do to depersonalize this network is a step in the right direction. It is much too easy to forget that all of those random accounts out there (with a few exceptions) are people, not just anonymous things to flame at blindly. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA This plane is equipped with 4 emergency exits, at the front and back of the plane and two above the wings. Please note that the plane will be travelling at an average altitude of 31,000 feet, so any use of these exits in an emergency situation will most likely be futile.