With great anonymity comes absolutely no responsibility
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
35 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
I love technology. It has given us so many modern marvels. Take, for instance, the fact that we now have a blanket with sleeves. SLEEVES! That alone has changed the lives of the dozens of people who struggled for years with the task of operating a standard-issue blanket.
Not to mention, technology has also given us KFC's Double Down sandwich (or as I like to call it, a heart attack to go).
And don't even get me started on the motorized ice cream cone.
As great as those things are, however, the main reason I love technology so much is that it has created angry mobs that now come in an online form. Exchanging pitchforks and torches for exclamation points and a ridiculous overuse of the ALL CAPS button, these new angry mobs are now called angry anonymous online posters.
Take, for instance, the Victoria Advocate online comment section (or as I like to call it, the Wild, Wild West 2.0). That place is thriving with anonymous posters who are just as likely to shoot you down with creatively spelled insults than as to look at you.
Of course, angry anonymous posters have been around since the beginning of time. Even back in the cavemen days, some dude named Og would come home from a long day of hunting weevils (which back then were much bigger) only to find that some angry anonymous poster wrote "ugh" right below his cave painting. And back in the first days of the computer when only binary code was being used, computer programmers would find messages such as "011011100110100101100011011001010010000001110000011100 100110111101100111011100100110000101101101001011000010 000001101010011000010110001101101011011000010111001101110011" from some angry anonymous hacker.
But in the digital age, it has become much more rampant since it's so easy to come up with a clever handle such as Angry_Lonely_Man43, log onto a newspaper website and spend the next 11 hours posting such whimsical gems as "all Albanians smell bad" and "who madd you the speling pollice?"
Now don't get me wrong. I am all for an online comment section. I think it's important for a newspaper to have instant feedback, good and bad, on articles and to have an open dialogue about the news and content of the paper. Even the negative comments I personally get online don't bother me since I realize it's part of my job to deal with and respond to criticism.
The part that bothers me is how all too often, since people can post anonymously, online discussions quickly dissolve into a barroom brawl.
While we have several great regular posters on our website who write interesting blogs and get good discussions going online, there also seems to be a swiftly increasing number of people who can't seem to handle the power anonymity gives them. On any given day, on almost any given article, something always seems to spark a firestorm and suddenly we have posters personally attacking one another, making veiled threats, making unsubstantiated claims and accusing everyone involved of being a Nazi (or worse yet, of being a Justin Bieber fan). It's become more like a playground for bullies, where wedgies are dolled out via text every few posts or so, than a place to have a discussion.
The worst part of all this is that the toxic online atmosphere may actually be preventing many other people who would like to contribute to these online discussions from logging on, thus preventing a wider array of opinions and points of view. In a place where World War III can break out over incorrect grammar, why would you want to put yourself in the line of fire if you don't have to?
Which brings me to my point (and only 18.5 inches in!). Would these same posters say those same things if they couldn't hide behind a screen name? Would they still make insensitive comments about someone's death if they had to put their real name behind it? And would they be more likely to abide by our online policy if their reputation was on the line with everything they posted?
It's a debate newspapers are having all over the country. There's no right or wrong answer. But in the end, I think the vast majority of us, both readers and staff members, would just like our online section to be more like a community and less like an episode of Jerry Springer.
Aprill Brandon is a reporter for the Advocate. To save time for our online posters, this column is not newsworthy, not well-written, is complete fluff, totally unfunny and just Aprill talking about herself again, while whining about mean posters (did I get them all?).
-
Print
- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
35 Comments
- •
- Favorite
- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Comments
SuperJeighty.
AMEN !!!!! AMEN !!!!!
August 13, 2010 at 5:09 a.m.Great article, Aprill. I particularly liked the comments at the end. Way to go!
August 12, 2010 at 4:24 p.m.April
August 12, 2010 at 9:12 a.m.I enjoy reading your column ,don't change a thing .
When I scroll down the responses of most posters, I'm always reminded of my favorite quote of the late, esteemed Mike Royko:
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.”
August 12, 2010 at 12:01 a.m.Last I checked, isn't April Brandon primarily a columnist, and when she is reporting it's on entertainment and whatnot...?
So covering the "real news," as some put it, is not her field. It would be like whining at Roger Ebert because he only reports on movies, instead of reporting on the congressional race in the Chicago metro area...
August 11, 2010 at 10:17 p.m.I second that KyleC...Great Job Aprill!!!PPl out there,you just don't get it, if you don't want, to read what Aprill writes..THEN DON"T READ IT...No one is forcing you to, & you don't decide for the rest of us that do!!!!Btw, I've been a subsciber for years and it doesn't bother me to pay the fee, every year to keep receiving my paper! Always a fan....
August 11, 2010 at 9:05 p.m.It takes a lot to rant and rave with your real name and picture next to your rants... and raves.
I have always been an advocate for less anonymity when it comes to online insults, etc.
But that's my thirty-seven cents.
:)
August 11, 2010 at 8:59 p.m.I gotta say Aprill, right on baby!
August 11, 2010 at 8:55 p.m.@bowties
Unless you commissioned a study and produced a statistically sound result kindly please explain to me how you know what most readers want in their newspaper?
I enjoy Aprill's column as part of the broad spectrum of content this newspaper produces everyday - if I don't like a piece I skip it and dont feel cheated or slighted.
Newspapers have ALWAYS provided diverse content and if it were not so we would not have had the pleasure of Charles Dickens or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works to enjoy since they both wrote non news items for the papers of the day.
Keep up the good work Aprill and know that all of these extreme comments means you are doing your job just fine.
:-)
August 11, 2010 at 8:44 p.m.I think the next article that you write should be actual news. I would rather see more advertisements in the paper than have to read blogs. Most readers get the paper to read news, if i want to read blogs I will go to a website or facebook or twitter. The Victoria Advocate, which people pay for, should not include such college freshman assignment. You must not have a journalism degree for writing in such a childish style. Please stop writing this garbage and wasting my money. Get out of your desk and do some reporting on something. You asked for this when you wrote this column.
August 11, 2010 at 7:23 p.m.If you would, e-mail me (abrandon@vicad.com) with the details and a contact person so I can find out more about the event before I fully commit. Thanks.
August 11, 2010 at 4:05 p.m.42
August 11, 2010 at 3:28 p.m.Hey edpost,
You guys won't happen to have pitchforks and torches at this town meeting, will you?
August 11, 2010 at 3:15 p.m.I kid, I kid. If you're serious, I'd love to come. I'm not much of a public speaker but I can give it my best.
And if you're kidding, I still highly enjoyed your comment. :)
-Aprill
The code for the moon landings was written in binary - yet they made it there and back.
August 11, 2010 at 12:23 p.m.I am anonymous for a reason. I don't want Chris or you hurting my family the way another person's family was hurt by an article lately. I will stay anonymous for that reason. But I must say, the article made me think. Good for you to get my attention. I will be less lavish with my criticism. I'll cheer for you when you write something of significance. Good luck.
August 11, 2010 at 11:59 a.m.This article sounds like some of the posters must have got under your skin. Way to go...you just added the fuel to their fire IMO.
August 11, 2010 at 11:25 a.m.HUGE (ALL CAPS) THUMBS WAY UP!!!! (EXCESSIVE EXCLAMATION POINTS)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your fan,
August 11, 2010 at 10:45 a.m.Rebecca Jane Kerth
Nice Job Aprill
11020100111022002111021
The new code
August 11, 2010 at 10:17 a.m.Umm... I like Justin Beiber, if I don't think about the lyrics and just sing along with the radio as I try to plan my route of errands so as to save as much time and gas as possible with two young boys screaming and fighting in the backseat. He's not too bad in these scenarios.
August 11, 2010 at 10:02 a.m.If only DEAD people understand hexadecimal, how many people understand hexadecimal?
August 11, 2010 at 9:58 a.m.0101001101110101011000110110101101100101011100100111001100100001
August 11, 2010 at 9:46 a.m.Anoter great article April! Thanks for always making me smile :)
August 11, 2010 at 8:39 a.m.me reader..you writer..me hung-gry, lol
have to stop by KFC---what's a double down?!?!
August 11, 2010 at 7:25 a.m.Technology only makes you anonymous to some. A determined person can usually find out who you are.
My screen name is only semi-anonymous.
Ross Valigura
August 11, 2010 at 5:56 a.m.This is all very true.
August 10, 2010 at 10:12 p.m.Amen, Aprill!
August 10, 2010 at 8:59 p.m."And would they be more likely to abide by our online policy if their reputation was on the line with everything they posted?"
Chris Cobler makes the rules yet doesn't follow them, integrity and reputation be *expletive deleted*. So, in a word, nope.
I think the reason you get so many negative comments is that a lot of people feel a blog is not newsworthy, regardless of the topic. People, if they are going to read opinion pieces, want to read opinions of people who are well-read, mature, logical, thoughtful, and funny without resorting to being purposely offensive in an attempt to be shocking. We all have friends who are witty and funny and immature and write just as well as you do..but we don't think their opinions are worthy of a spot on the front page.
It has less to do with a personal dislike of you, than it does the fact that The Advocte glorifies your column, as if we've never met anyone like Aprill Brandon before. You have to admit, anyone can be an interesting blogger when they're telling funny stories about getting drunk, getting tattooed, or being nervous about getting married. I'm not insinuating you're a dime a dozen or that your opinions are worthless. I'm just saying that the front page is, and always has been, sacred for readers. You don't subscribe to a newspaper to read about a 20-something being a dork and saying things we've heard months ago. Like the heart attack to go line. The day the sandwich was announced, people were making that joke. So, by now, it just feels like you've taken someone else's joke that's not funny anymore in an attempt to be witty.
We expect news, even if it's not something we're particularly interested in. By "news", I mean information. Information we were not previously privy to. So, again, it's mostly nothing personal. It's The Advocate's choice of placement of your columns - fluff or not.
I don't agree with how vicious people have been, though. I didn't mean to come off as *expletive deleted* as I may have sounded. I do apologize if i've been harsh, though I know you're definitely not a sensitive baby doll and can most definitely weather any criticism.
I don't have a problem with the things you write because I simply choose not to read it if i'm not interested. It's as easy as that. You've not harmed me by simply existing, as some people seem to think. *eye roll* But I do think that any ill will harbored would decrease dramatically if your column weren't placed among more heavy, life-changing news stories.
I admire that you keep on keepin' on. I don't have such a thick skin, and I am totally going to cringe like a mofo when I get attacked for what i've written here. Heh.
August 10, 2010 at 8:10 p.m.Excellent article. So funny, but so true.
Bet life here would be much different if every user used a real name and a real picture.
Don't see binary much any more these days, glad to see a writer really embrace the culture to this extent.
August 10, 2010 at 7:37 p.m.I must be hungry because out of that whole article the only thing I am thinking about is the Double Down from KFC.
August 10, 2010 at 7:26 p.m.