Jonathan Myerson (Licence to bully, 28 August) is absolutely right: online anonymity is debasing true debate.
Currently arguments about internet governance swing from one extreme – John Kampfner's demand last week for no restrictions at all – to another – Theresa May's desire to track all email traffic. We need a more balanced approach, matching rights to responsibilities. Tackling anonymity is key.
When I call for better child protection on the net the industry responds by saying it's like traffic – parents must teach their children safety. But to go on the road you need a driving licence, and it's an offence not to give your true name and address. The internet needs to grow up – it cannot remain like the forest in the 13th century at the time of Robin Hood, totally outside the law. Myerson's argument is timely and helpful.
Helen Goodman MP
Shadow minister for media
• Jonathan Myerson has a point about online anonymity facilitating abusive comments. I always use my own name when tweeting or posting online. Either you can defend what you have to say or you should keep quiet. But there are exceptions. First, for a range of reasons – employers being one – not everyone does feel as free as they might wish to say what they want. This goes beyond whistleblowing to the expression of political views. As important is the role of the pseudonym or pen name. Here the writer's name can be discovered, but not easily, and the cloak of relative anonymity allows them to say publicly what they might otherwise not. The Secret Footballer comes to mind.
Keith Flett
London
• Jonathan Myerson doesn't mention the unhelpful and potentially pernicious exercise in collecting and displaying customers' anonymous comments on services such as restaurants.
Looking recently at just such a case I found an instance with three almost slanderous comments interspersed with several glowing testimonies, one of which said "it was so good we went again the next night". It is difficult, if not impossible, to glean anything from such diametrically opposite views, and the aggregate score added little light. More importantly, the owner of the restaurant has little or no opportunity to rebut potentially damaging comments, and may even wonder whether his competitors are posting false messages of dissatisfaction.
Alan Gilchrist
Brighton
• It is all very well for Jonathan Myerson to decry online anonymity in the Guardian – he will not suffer the consequences of his writing the article. There are many parts of the world (including the US) where being a member of the LGBT community can result in persecution or death. There are parts of the world where being an atheist can have fatal consequences; in the US atheists can lose their jobs.
Is Myerson saying these people should keep quiet, or perhaps he does not think the consequences of speaking out matter? Pseudonymity (not anonymity) on the internet has given many oppressed people the ability to speak out without fear of reprisal – should this be abandoned to assuage Myerson's tender feelings?
Andrew Deacon
Leicester
Currently arguments about internet governance swing from one extreme – John Kampfner's demand last week for no restrictions at all – to another – Theresa May's desire to track all email traffic. We need a more balanced approach, matching rights to responsibilities. Tackling anonymity is key.
When I call for better child protection on the net the industry responds by saying it's like traffic – parents must teach their children safety. But to go on the road you need a driving licence, and it's an offence not to give your true name and address. The internet needs to grow up – it cannot remain like the forest in the 13th century at the time of Robin Hood, totally outside the law. Myerson's argument is timely and helpful.
Helen Goodman MP
Shadow minister for media
• Jonathan Myerson has a point about online anonymity facilitating abusive comments. I always use my own name when tweeting or posting online. Either you can defend what you have to say or you should keep quiet. But there are exceptions. First, for a range of reasons – employers being one – not everyone does feel as free as they might wish to say what they want. This goes beyond whistleblowing to the expression of political views. As important is the role of the pseudonym or pen name. Here the writer's name can be discovered, but not easily, and the cloak of relative anonymity allows them to say publicly what they might otherwise not. The Secret Footballer comes to mind.
Keith Flett
London
• Jonathan Myerson doesn't mention the unhelpful and potentially pernicious exercise in collecting and displaying customers' anonymous comments on services such as restaurants.
Looking recently at just such a case I found an instance with three almost slanderous comments interspersed with several glowing testimonies, one of which said "it was so good we went again the next night". It is difficult, if not impossible, to glean anything from such diametrically opposite views, and the aggregate score added little light. More importantly, the owner of the restaurant has little or no opportunity to rebut potentially damaging comments, and may even wonder whether his competitors are posting false messages of dissatisfaction.
Alan Gilchrist
Brighton
• It is all very well for Jonathan Myerson to decry online anonymity in the Guardian – he will not suffer the consequences of his writing the article. There are many parts of the world (including the US) where being a member of the LGBT community can result in persecution or death. There are parts of the world where being an atheist can have fatal consequences; in the US atheists can lose their jobs.
Is Myerson saying these people should keep quiet, or perhaps he does not think the consequences of speaking out matter? Pseudonymity (not anonymity) on the internet has given many oppressed people the ability to speak out without fear of reprisal – should this be abandoned to assuage Myerson's tender feelings?
Andrew Deacon
Leicester
No comments:
Post a Comment