The case against blog anonymity

The Liberal Democrats’ official monthly magazine Ad Lib recently invited me to write a short article making the case against anonymity on political blogs.

The magazine has now been published. The original text of the article is reproduced below (although I haven’t yet seen the published version, which Ad Lib’s editors may in their wisdom have altered):

Liberator’s blog (liberator-magazine.blogspot.co.uk) does not allow anonymous comments, whether pseudonymous or completely anonymous. If you are familiar with political or media blogs, you will understand why. Behind the shield of anonymity, a small but vociferous band of infantile trolls and obsessive bores can ruin it for everyone else.

Comments are frequently obscene (e.g. Guido Fawkes), personally abusive (e.g. Guardian ‘Comment is Free’) or impenetrable banter (e.g. Political Betting). The majority of people find this intimidating and off-putting. They would rather participate in civilised and intelligent debate than a short-tempered, juvenile brawl.

Abusive commenters have certain things in common. They are mostly male. The petulant tone suggests they are mostly young. And they hardly ever use their real, full names, preferring to post anonymously or hide behind a pseudonym.

There are a few people with a genuine reason for anonymity, such as a politically-restricted job. Most anonymous commenters have no such excuse. Their motives are cowardice (because it’s easier to be abusive if your real identity is concealed) or pomposity (because you can acquire unearned status with a bogus authoritative persona).

Would we tolerate anonymous speakers at party conference, their faces hidden behind a mask? Of course not. So why tolerate it online? We need to reject the idea that the internet exists in a moral bubble, beyond the normal rules of human courtesy that apply elsewhere.

Getting rid of anonymity is not a panacea for abuse. But if commenters were obliged to use their real names, they would think twice before being obnoxious.

Whether anonymous comments are allowed is ultimately at the discretion of a blog’s owners. But I would urge owners not to indulge the anonymous. The world of political blogging would be much healthier if participants behaved like grown-ups and used their real identities.

Ad Lib has published another article alongside mine, expressing the opposite point of view. It’s wrong, of course.

Our top ten blog posts

This blog began exactly six months ago on 10 November 2012. It has steadily gained a bigger audience, but which are the stories that attracted the biggest audiences? Here are the top ten posts, starting with the most popular*:

1. Stay “on message” or be EXTERMINATED! (28 December 2012) – The most popular post by a long way, in which the Liberal Democrats’ new ‘message script’ was revealed.
2. New Lib Dem peerages: runners and riders (14 February 2013) – A list of new peers has been drawn up and we speculated who was on it. At the time of writing, however, the list has still not been announced.
3. Laws scrapes home (8 January 2013) – The third of three posts on the controversial appointment of David Laws to chair the Liberal Democrats’ working group that will draft the next general election manifesto.
4. And Clegg’s next slap in the face to the party is...? (27 March 2013) – Following the controversies of secret courts and immigration, we raised the issue of the Communications Data Bill. Thankfully, on this topic Nick Clegg subsequently accepted his party’s view.
5. The Rise and Fall of Economic Liberalism (17 March 2013) – A detailed account of the factionalism within the Liberal Democrats that began in 2001, and an analysis of why the plotting by ‘economic liberals’ is ultimately doomed.
6. Clegg to abandon electoral reform? (1 April 2013) – The date provides a clue. Our April Fool’s Day story fooled several of you but its plausibility says a lot about the party’s relationship with its leader.
7. Quote of the Conference (10 March 2013) – And the quote came from former MP David Howarth, speaking in the debate on secret courts.
8. Laws to write manifesto? (5 January 2013) – The first of three posts on the controversial appointment of David Laws to chair the Liberal Democrats’ working group that will draft the next general election manifesto.
9. Racial equality too dangerous to debate? (22 January 2013) – Our report on the decision of the Liberal Democrats’ Federal Conference Committee (FCC) to reject a motion on racial equality for debate at the party’s spring conference. We also examined the long-simmering internal row behind this controversial decision.
10. Gay marriage – never mind the Tories, what about the Labour and Lib Dem rebels? (5 February 2013) – On the day of the Commons vote on gay marriage, the media focus was on the Tory rebels. We looked instead at the Labour and Liberal Democrat opponents of gay marriage.

* Popularity is ranked according to the number of pageviews (i.e. clicks to individual posts) recorded by Blogger.com.

Pause, reflect, deliberate, make a pot of tea

This blog post about the Oxford Comma turns into a wider consideration of the poor quality of most writing on the internet:

The internet has a much higher write-to-read ratio than traditional methods of mass content distribution. In television, radio, newspapers, books, film and theatre there is a hard division between a small number of content producers and a large number of content consumers. Not so the internet. Many of us go online with the intention of reading, but before we’re done, we’ve written a bunch of tweets, sent off a comment, or engaged in an all out flame war, almost always in the public domain.

Writing online is so nearly effortless that reading (not to mention reflection, deliberation and thought) has become a chore in comparison. It’s easier to jot off a patronizing, indignant or self-aggrandizing missive than it is to take the trouble to read the whole article or give fair consideration to the author’s perspective. Thus the vicious circle sets in…

Why go to the trouble of producing a balanced or inquiring article for a medium that encourages rapid-fire feedback over deliberation and reflection? And why, in turn, respond to that article with any semblance of balance in a medium that rewards bite-sized bluster over nuance and accuracy? And why, for that matter, bother reading the article at all, when speed is everything, and you’d better get your soundbite in now because they’ll be new outrages to decry tomorrow?

This may be hard for people with a short attention span to understand but, before you ever comment on a blog, read the post in full and any linked content, then pause, make a pot of tea, reflect, deliberate, make another pot of tea, then respond intelligently and courteously. Never mind if someone else gets in ahead of you – your thoughtful comment will look more intelligent than theirs.

Our comments policy

When Liberator launched this blog, we decided from the outset to have a comments policy – it is set out in the right-hand column.

If you have ever seen any other politics-related blogs, you will know why. A small but vociferous band of infantile trolls and obsessive bores can ruin it for everyone else. To experience this at its worst, take a look at one of Britain’s most popular political blogs, Guido Fawkes. To read the comments beneath any post is to stare into a cesspit.

Then look at another popular blog, Political Betting. This ought to be (and often is) a really useful exchange of inside knowledge. But to find the gems, you have to wade through a lot of dross. A handful of regulars dominates proceedings, trading in-jokes and off-topic banter. The comments beneath each post read like a drunken conversation in the bar of a private club, not an open and intelligent public debate.

Liberal Democrat Voice is quite heavily moderated, with byzantine commenting rules and filters set up to intercept all kinds of potentially offensive words or phrases. Even so, the comments tend to be dominated by the same handful of (mostly right-wing) obsessives, who chip in on every topic in an often aggressive manner, while adding little to the sum total of human wisdom.

There is an understandable perception that most political trolls are right-wing libertarians, and indeed many are. But the right does not have a monopoly. Look at the comments posted under any story on the Guardian’s website (especially if it’s a story about the Liberal Democrats) and you will see that Labour Party supporters can troll with the best of them.

Irrespective of ideology, these abusive commenters have certain features in common. They are overwhelmingly male. The passive-aggressive tone suggests they are mostly young. The frequency of comments, 24 hours a day, suggests they need a life. But there’s something else. They never use their real, full names, preferring to post anonymously or hide behind a pseudonym.

You do wonder about the psychology of these people. Why resort to anonymity? A few people may have a genuine motive, such as a politically-restricted occupation, but it is doubtful this applies in many cases.

One obvious motive is cowardice. If you are going to be abusive or use intemperate language, how much easier when your real identity is concealed. You can say things you would never dare say to someone’s face.

Another motive is a desire for unearned status. If you are Fred Bloggs, a 23-year old student with no serious political track record, your opinions are likely to carry little weight, and trying to compensate with a commanding tone simply looks pompous. But invent a pseudonym and adopt a spurious authoritative voice, and delivering grandiloquent put-downs is much easier to do.

Why should any of this matter? It’s a free society, and we should be able to take the rough with the smooth, surely? It matters because, for anyone who isn’t an inadequate young man sitting in front of his computer 24 hours a day and venting his spleen, a torrent of boorish comments is, at best, tedious and, at worst, highly intimidating, especially for women or anyone (male or female) unused to the rough and tumble of politics.

Here on Liberator’s blog, we welcome comments and debate. We simply ask that you exercise some courtesy and help us facilitate intelligent debate. We don’t want a few headbangers spoiling it for everyone else.

That’s why we ban anonymous or pseudonymous comments. It’s a blunt instrument but the most expedient means of eliminating abusive comments. You may not like this policy, but it is our blog. You have no automatic right to comment here, and we are not obliged to publish everything you say. Marks and Spencer is free to trade, and I may freely choose whether to shop there, but I have no right to take a dump in the middle of their stores.

Our rules in no way infringe your freedom of speech. If you are part of the annoying minority that wants to trade abuse, there are plenty of other places online where you can do it, and they are welcome to you.