Blogging 101: Anonymous comments.
May 5, 2005
Over the next couple of weeks, I’m going to be blogging about blogging. Questions about blogging ethics, authenticity vs censorship, etc. Let me begin with the question of anonymous comments.
I am of the belief that if you have something critical to say, own it. I’ve said that before here on this blog, and said that if you are going to post anonymously, I am going to delete your comment. If you feel passionate enough about something to post a comment, especially a mean-spirited or critical comment, the least you can do is own it.
Tonight "matt" (who left this email address: mateo6872@hotmail.com) left the following comment on this blog:
"rather than mock this guy why don’t you respond to it? That seems to be the problem with this site. You never address those who disagree with you, you only mock them and move on. Why not wear shirts that say, "Adulterer? Fine by me" or "Embezzler? Fine by me" Why not answer someone rather than just avoiding them?"
I was not a fan of the comment to begin with, because of his poor attempt to equate homosexuality with embezzlement and adultery - that’s not okay in my book and something I don’t tolerate on this blog. So I emailed him about it - but the email was returned to me because the email address doesn’t exist. Then, just for fun, I checked the IP address, and "matt" is a student at Princeton Theological Seminary. So, my problem is that especially if you are a fellow seminarian, you should be able to come to me in person or at least email me your specific concerns - or at least claim your comment with an email address that automatically works. So I took "matt"’s comment down - but if you are reading this Matt, you are more than welcome to leave comments on my blog, as long as they are not hurtful to others who may read my blog - but own them - leave us an email address that works.
Are there other thoughts on anonymous commenters out there? Unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I believe that anonymous comments automatically lose a majority of their credibility because of the anonymity.
Tags: Blogging, Blogs, Comments, Dialogue
Posted in Technology ShareThis
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
May 5th, 2005 at 1:41 am
Completely agree. If I don’t get an email addy and it’s someone I don’t know, I expect foul play. Often that’s the case.
May 5th, 2005 at 2:05 am
In principle I agree with you entirely.
I do believe there are some (so far theoretical) occasions when a commenter identifying themselves directly may hurt them somehow. Let’s say, for example, someone outing themselves in a blog comment.
To me it’s the hit and run anonymous comments that are lame and fully deserving of deletion. And my policy (should it ever happen) would be to reserve the right to delete anonymous comments, but not necessarily to do it automatically.
May 5th, 2005 at 2:42 am
Yes people, have the sack to OWN what you claim to be espousing. However, I have a friend that’s an embezzler and thinks he might have been born with it. So, i think a little sensitivity is in order here. I understand the scientific community is divided on the issue but we, as the church, should approach this issue with grace and understanding. I mean, it makes all the sense in the world to equate issues like embezzlement, adultry, and paedophilia with gay and lesbians….
Sometimes I think people just like to argue instead of approach certain issues within the confines of grace.
May 5th, 2005 at 8:35 am
Over time I am learning that it is not helpful to state things in black and white terms. Here is one firm principle that I do live with on my blog: Anonymous comments should be banned. This whole blog thing is about trying to start conversations, and if someone uses a false email address or comments anonymously that is not truly a conversation, but instead a false feeling of engagement. It just gives them a chance to throw up their thoughts but not really be involved.
Even the theoretical situation where someone is “outing” themselves in comments is not really coming out and discussing an issue, whether that is their sexuality or any other issue they are facing. It seems to me that the problem there is that you have created a false sense of intimacy for that person without really creating a space for them to discuss their issue. If anything, you have reinforced the notion that their concern, whatever that might be, is something about which they need to remain “anonymous”.
May 5th, 2005 at 9:01 am
Adam, I think your decision not to allow anonymous posting on your blog is wise. True dialogue is difficult enough on blogs, and anonymity makes it impossible.
May 5th, 2005 at 10:03 am
Good for you. I hate it when anonymous posters engage in drive-by commenting on my blog, so perhaps removing them is the answer.
May 5th, 2005 at 10:06 am
Adam, I agree completely.
Perhaps a helpful comparison is “letters to the editor” in most reputable newspapers. There might be a situation where a letter would be printed “Name Withheld Upon Request” because of some special circumstances. But even in those cases, the letter is not “anonymous.” The writer still must own their views (at least to the editor) and take responsibility thus for anything libelous or defamatory. Presumably, the risk they are avoiding by not letting their name be used is some genuine injury to their person or employment–not just embarrassment or fear that someone will disagree.
May 5th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Anonymous posters have struggled through much persecution. One day it will be seen that God loves us as much as any other posters.
Go ahead and delete me…I can take it…
Seriously though, I’m all for deleting anonymous posters. I don’t like blogs that require registration for posting but I don’t think it’s too much to ask to leave your name and a real email address.
Adam
elcapitan678@yahoo.com (go ahead and try it, it’s real)
May 5th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Yeah, anonymous comments ain’t the greatest thing in the world, but that does not mean they should be automatically deleted. Anonymity does not necessarily invalidate the point, so I think there should be a 2 part test. If the comment is anonymous, but raises a valid point then it should stay. If its anonymous and fails to make a good point or is just mean-spirited, then delete it.
Take the quoted comment above - it raises a good point, both about Adam’s blogging style and the theological/ethical considerations behind the shirt. Yes, it was crudely presented, but that does not invalidate what it has to say. For instance, Adam says that posting a comment is fine so “as long as they are not hurtful to others who may read my blog.” But in the previous post on “right-wingers”, Adam states in the comments “Ken, I wear the shirt because it is what I believe. If it pisses off right wing conservatives, then that is something I’ll have to deal with.” (emphasis added) Apparently its ok to offend people in public, but not on Adam’s blog. Why are the considerations of an offensive comment different than the ethics of an offensive t-shirt? And why is open debate (which can indeed be hurtful, no matter the intentions of those involved) about homosexuality and the Bible forbidden? We understand that you may have already made up your mind on the matter but not everyone has.
May 5th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Ouch, I guess I’ll be the fist person to disagree with you, Adam. Of course, I am posting this in fully identified fashion, but have been a blogger myself now for a couple years, I have to say that allowing anonymous comments on my blog has been a positive thing. I get your take about “owning” your views, but you can’t assume that your entire readership shares your level of maturity.
Frankly, requiring folks to identify themselves at all times forces them to continue to put the best face on their opinions. This to me is dishonest. To me (and believe me, I am not trying to convince anyone - you asked for our takes - I’m giving you mine) - allowing anonymous comments while preferring commenters to ID themsleves, is the whole reason blogs are better than church.
May 5th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
the pomomusings equation for anonymous nonnatives:
pick a post to respond to + leave a stupid ass comment = get unattributed recognition (like “Matt”)
On a serious note, i welcome the anonymous comments, but a fraudulent email address is wrong.
May 5th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
i think all commentators should leave a name and link - for feedback and accountability
but blogger’s dashboard can be confusing - if you dont allow anonymous comments, non-blogspotting bloggers (like me in typepad) cannot leave any comment at all.
May 5th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Yeah, I don’t have anything to add, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. I’m tired of people using the internet’s supposed veil of anonymity to be jerks.
This about says it:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-03-19&res=h
(warning: crude, yet, spot-on humour within)
May 5th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
I think that is a valid point, Nathan, if you are new to the blog. But, Adam has had many, many thorough and controversial posts, with all their comments, about the bible and homosexuality. And I think Adam felt like the issue had been discussed enough and wasn’t getting anywhere constructive…I think that is why he approaches this particular issue with a bit more grace…
May 5th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
i agree with all the comments about how commenters need to “own their comments” and can only come up with one good reason why someone may legimitely want to leave out an email address: they don’t have a blog to link to and they don’t want spiders to be able to grab their email and deliver it straight to the spammers.
May 5th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Cory -
I’m not particularly new to Adam’s blog, but others could be and its not really reasonable to suggest that they search through his site to find previous posts. Now, it may be that he (or others) could link to such posts as a way of not going over the same ground again and again, but until the issue is settled in general than, to me anyways, it doesn’t seem right to preclude conversation on the matter. Particularly when Adam makes such a big deal about the t-shirts - if you don’t to enter into the debate, then don’t bring it up at all.
“…I think that is why he approaches this particular issue with a bit more grace…”
See, I tend to think not caring about whether or not you’re pissing off or offending other people, particularly other Christians, isn’t showing much grace at all. Obviously, Matt’s post wasn’t all that graceful either, but the debate/discussion is still important.
May 6th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
I myself being uncertain of the whole postmodern approach to Jesus am a bit confused in that I would think being able to omit one’s idenity would seem to go right along with postmodernity. Being vauge and abstract seems to be very in these days, so what not be open to those who do not want to disclose who they are? If we are truly trying to have a “conversation” we should respect those who do not yet feel comfortable to reveal themselves at the moment. Oh one more thing what about actually moving forward in the conversation and giving honest direct responses to the questions that the guy actually brought to the table, afterall many are asking them but no one is in the emergent movement is dealing with them, just a thought.
cheers.
May 6th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
“I would think being able to omit one’s idenity would seem to go right along with postmodernity. Being vauge and abstract seems to be very in these days, so what not be open to those who do not want to disclose who they are?”
a big theme in postmodernism is the value of the individual narrative. to me, in order to convey truth in the form of personal narrative, you have to be willing to identify yourself. postmodernism isn’t about being ambiguous, it is about giving worth to the individual story and experience. if your story is worth telling, then you should be willing to own up to it. to me, it is VERY postmodern to want to own your story.
May 6th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
Perhaps anonymity appeals to some of us *on occasion* because it allows for us to leave our thoughts without feeling intimidated by the fact that we may well be typing text into a large group of friends who know each other… or perhaps we are of another generation, not so eager to demand credit for our musings….
While I agree that the blog owner should exercise his/her right to delete rude and/or “spam” comments, I do not feel that thought - owned or abandoned - has more or less value on the basis of the name associated with it.
Sorry Adam… and yet in so much we agree…
~Psyche
May 6th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Wow - didn’t know I would set off such a firestorm for an email account that actually DOES exist and for simply asking a question, asking for a legitimate answer. That’s why blogging doesn’t seem to be a real answer. I asked a question only wanting someone to truly answer me and everyone labels me a graceless jerk. At what point do you insert some of that grace you always speak of and just tell me what you think. By the way, if I wanted to be anonymous why did I leave my name?
Matt
May 6th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
Matt, the thing is you didn’t leave an email that actually works - I tried to email it and it got returned. You are also part of the PTS community, so I was hoping that you would let the rest of us who are part of this community know who you really are. I didn’t respond to your comment because of the nature of the comment. If you want to have a conversation - let’s have it - but let’s all let each other know who we are…
May 6th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
OK Adam, the fact that I have posted again trying to get you to answer the question means that I AM trying to have a conversation with you but it is obvious that you would rather defend your blogging ethics and rant about anonymous bloggers so I guess I’ll never get you to just answer the question. I do appreciate many of your thoughts and while, I don’t always agree with you, I find some of the posts interesting. All I was suggesting is that bloggers tend to raise lots of questions and talk about how all of those “right-wing conservatives” have no grace, and yet I get all sorts of hell over a simply question, only a few of which has any respect or grace within. All I wanted was a well thought out, grace-filled response, I guess that’s too much to ask.
Matt
May 8th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
…and your silence on the subject can only mean that you’re not going to respond? When does the conversation begin?
matt
May 8th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Matt, I sent you an email at the email address you claimed is working. It didn’t get sent back, but I have yet to receive a reply.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:13 am
I agree about the comments, but what do you do about someone who sets up blogs anonymously and posts about you. I have one doing that and they are committing defamation and libel. I don’t know who they are because they put up anonymous blogs.
If I have something to say I own it as you suggest. But what do you do whjen others don’t?