Ed has apologized, publius has accepted. Everyone is moving on.
And I'm glad. Normally these things just turn into lingering bitterness, because normally people can't admit when they're wrong. It was big of Ed to apologize, and I admit that I wasn't expecting him to. This makes me think much more highly of him than I had before.
Obviously, I hope there are no long term repercussions for publius. Assuming that to be so, it's nice when things work out.
Showing posts with label anonymity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anonymity. Show all posts
Monday, June 08, 2009
Sunday, June 07, 2009
What is this "Obligation" You Speak Of?
On the outing-gate scandal that is consuming the blogosphere, Matthew Franck writes something very revealing:
The claim here, that we have "no obligation to respect" the decisions of our fellow human beings; that one's choice over how to present oneself in the public eye can be swatted aside for "no particular reason at all", is astounding to me. It represents one of the attributes I find most distasteful about the modern conservative movement -- the complete dismissal of interconnectedness, solidarity, or even respectful interaction. Anything I have the "right" to do, I should be able to do without criticism or compunction. Free speech means I can make a racist joke about a co-worker. Should I? Who cares -- it's free speech! The mechanics of the law and the marketplace mean that I can make billions of dollars destroying ecosystems and horde the entire thing, spending nary a penny on the public good. Should I? Who cares -- it's capitalism! Freedom is understood to mean not just legal autonomy, but moral autonomy as well -- a kind of sick Nietzcheanism that renders basic ethical interaction superfluous. For those of us who are not only for ourselves, this sort of mentality can't help but repulse.
And that's as a general matter. On the specific point of pseudonyms, Hilzoy's post on the matter shows how spectacularly irresponsible this is. Franck admits he wouldn't out a Chinese dissident who'd be tortured if his identity was revealed. But Whelan had no idea why publius chose to remain pseudonymous. His reasons turned out to be to avoid family strife, to protect the careers of (Republican) operatives in his family, and to avoid any tenure controversies. All solid enough reasons for me. But they could have been considerably more dramatic. He might have had a stalker. He might have a boss who swore never to hire Democratic scum (unlikely given that he was an academic, but a possibility for bloggers in fields without strong norms of academic freedom). The point is, we didn't know. And in absence of that knowledge, Whelan cavalierly decided to roll dice with publius' life. Because he had the right to. And that's all that matters.
[E]xploding someone's cover and revealing his identity breaches no ethical norm I can think of. Blevins had his reasons for writing as "Publius," but Ed had no obligation to respect those reasons, and he didn't have to catch Blevins in any form of unethical argumentation in order to "out" him. I'm sympathetic to Ed's view that Blevins "smeared" him, but I haven't weighed that matter very carefully, and I don't think it counts for much on the ethical scorecard one way or the other. Ed reported a fact he had a right to tell, for whatever reason it suited him to tell it—including no particular reason at all other than that he found it useful at the moment he did it.
The claim here, that we have "no obligation to respect" the decisions of our fellow human beings; that one's choice over how to present oneself in the public eye can be swatted aside for "no particular reason at all", is astounding to me. It represents one of the attributes I find most distasteful about the modern conservative movement -- the complete dismissal of interconnectedness, solidarity, or even respectful interaction. Anything I have the "right" to do, I should be able to do without criticism or compunction. Free speech means I can make a racist joke about a co-worker. Should I? Who cares -- it's free speech! The mechanics of the law and the marketplace mean that I can make billions of dollars destroying ecosystems and horde the entire thing, spending nary a penny on the public good. Should I? Who cares -- it's capitalism! Freedom is understood to mean not just legal autonomy, but moral autonomy as well -- a kind of sick Nietzcheanism that renders basic ethical interaction superfluous. For those of us who are not only for ourselves, this sort of mentality can't help but repulse.
And that's as a general matter. On the specific point of pseudonyms, Hilzoy's post on the matter shows how spectacularly irresponsible this is. Franck admits he wouldn't out a Chinese dissident who'd be tortured if his identity was revealed. But Whelan had no idea why publius chose to remain pseudonymous. His reasons turned out to be to avoid family strife, to protect the careers of (Republican) operatives in his family, and to avoid any tenure controversies. All solid enough reasons for me. But they could have been considerably more dramatic. He might have had a stalker. He might have a boss who swore never to hire Democratic scum (unlikely given that he was an academic, but a possibility for bloggers in fields without strong norms of academic freedom). The point is, we didn't know. And in absence of that knowledge, Whelan cavalierly decided to roll dice with publius' life. Because he had the right to. And that's all that matters.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
The Outing
The blogger known as Publius has been outed by conservative hatchet-man Ed Whelan. Whelan was upset that Publius had the temerity to disagree heatedly with his (inane) legal analysis. So he stripped his pseudonym away -- despite being informed by Publius that he had excellent personal and professional reasons to keep his identity shielded. Needless to say, this is a spectacularly dickish thing to do. All I can do is reiterate that Publius is a fabulous blogger, and he has my full support. As for Whelan, well, I doubt he has shame one can appeal to, so I have nothing to say to him.
I saw the news, by the way, through a post by Feddie's Southern Appeal blog. My relationship with Feddie is, I think, roughly parallel to Publius' (indeed, I may have originally been "introduced", electronically, to SA through Publius): I disagree heatedly with nearly everything he writes, but respect him as someone with a good heart and a genuinely fair-minded disposition. Unsurprisingly, his post is harshly critical of Whelan. Because people of all political dispositions know that, fundamentally, what Whelan did was wrong. And it should be labeled as such.
I saw the news, by the way, through a post by Feddie's Southern Appeal blog. My relationship with Feddie is, I think, roughly parallel to Publius' (indeed, I may have originally been "introduced", electronically, to SA through Publius): I disagree heatedly with nearly everything he writes, but respect him as someone with a good heart and a genuinely fair-minded disposition. Unsurprisingly, his post is harshly critical of Whelan. Because people of all political dispositions know that, fundamentally, what Whelan did was wrong. And it should be labeled as such.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Is There a Right To Comment Anonymously?
For the record, this post isn't written in response to anything that's happened on this site. Barring anything unforeseen, I don't expect to in any way hamper anonymous commenting on this site. And while I know theoretically it's possible to track down someone's identity via their IP address, I neither know nor care to know how to go about that.
But I do wonder whether or not people have any reasonable expectation of maintaining their anonymity when they comment on someone else's blog. I fully acknowledge and respect the right of people to start their own blog anonymously. There are many people who, for a variety of reasons, either couldn't or wouldn't write if their identities were publicly known. I read many of these bloggers myself, and I know the blogosphere is better for it. But that's at their own place. What about at other blogs? Is the blog-host who threatens to expose an abusive, trollish, or otherwise hostile anonymous commenter completely out of line?
On the one hand, it is obvious that not guaranteeing anonymity would deter certain people from commenting -- most notably the aforementioned people who blog anonymously. While I actually know of some anonymous bloggers who leave comments under their real name (but who don't link their name to their anonymous blog), many would be uncomfortable even with that. And furthermore, this strategy still blocks participation by their anonymous personas. A comment by "PG" is more meaningful than one by "Pam Gomez" (name deliberately chosen so that it has no chance of being anything close to PG's actual name, which I don't know), because even though they're the same person, I can link PG to her broader array of work, while I have no idea who Pam Gomez is.
On the other hand, anonymity has its fair share of problems. For one, if my blog is my house, I kind of have a right to know who is visiting -- particularly if they are slinging muck my way. People undoubtedly behave worse when they don't feel accountable to their real-world reputation. And, stepping across another line, if someone is being stalked or harassed online, anonymity can be very dangerous. Some blogs which depend on their commenters for credible, inside information (like Brian Leiter's) often don't allow anonymous comments at all because they aren't as trustworthy.
I think the norms of the blogosphere have developed so that, unless specifically told otherwise, an anonymous commenter can expect that her anonymity will be preserved unless specifically told otherwise. I do, however, think it is within a blogger's rights to warn an offensive commenter that, if she returns, her anonymity is forfeit. My house, my rules, so long as I give fair notice.
But I do wonder whether or not people have any reasonable expectation of maintaining their anonymity when they comment on someone else's blog. I fully acknowledge and respect the right of people to start their own blog anonymously. There are many people who, for a variety of reasons, either couldn't or wouldn't write if their identities were publicly known. I read many of these bloggers myself, and I know the blogosphere is better for it. But that's at their own place. What about at other blogs? Is the blog-host who threatens to expose an abusive, trollish, or otherwise hostile anonymous commenter completely out of line?
On the one hand, it is obvious that not guaranteeing anonymity would deter certain people from commenting -- most notably the aforementioned people who blog anonymously. While I actually know of some anonymous bloggers who leave comments under their real name (but who don't link their name to their anonymous blog), many would be uncomfortable even with that. And furthermore, this strategy still blocks participation by their anonymous personas. A comment by "PG" is more meaningful than one by "Pam Gomez" (name deliberately chosen so that it has no chance of being anything close to PG's actual name, which I don't know), because even though they're the same person, I can link PG to her broader array of work, while I have no idea who Pam Gomez is.
On the other hand, anonymity has its fair share of problems. For one, if my blog is my house, I kind of have a right to know who is visiting -- particularly if they are slinging muck my way. People undoubtedly behave worse when they don't feel accountable to their real-world reputation. And, stepping across another line, if someone is being stalked or harassed online, anonymity can be very dangerous. Some blogs which depend on their commenters for credible, inside information (like Brian Leiter's) often don't allow anonymous comments at all because they aren't as trustworthy.
I think the norms of the blogosphere have developed so that, unless specifically told otherwise, an anonymous commenter can expect that her anonymity will be preserved unless specifically told otherwise. I do, however, think it is within a blogger's rights to warn an offensive commenter that, if she returns, her anonymity is forfeit. My house, my rules, so long as I give fair notice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
