The veil of anonymity
Though he primarily focused on the ever-growing tension between Harry Sims and Carl Jordan, Blake brings up a good quote by District One Commissioner Doug Lowry, who was skeptical of the blog community ...
Mostly, the five commissioners on the GOC – not to be confused with the DOC – talked about starting up government blogs and Internet message boards, the idea being that the more ways citizens can get in touch with commissioners, the less they’ll want to show up at voting meetings.
The biggest concerns were whether they could censor obscene or libelous posts – no, said county Attorney Bill Berryman – and how to ensure everyone used their real names.
'I'm not going to talk to Bulldog20 or something like that,' Commissioner Doug Lowry said.
I think it's a good idea for the commission to find ways to increase participation and dialogue, and I'm always grateful for those elected officials who peruse my blog (and others) and offer a comment or two. My concern with Lowry's statement is that, well, as of now, that's how the blogosphere works.
Almost everyone operates under a nickname of some sort. For many, sure, it provides a sense of anonymity for folks who might fear reprisal or for folks who just want to comment as is. Anonymous quotes can be a little frustrating, particularly in a passionate conversation, but it's still someone who is putting up valid arguments and questions and concerns.
To say that you don't want to talk to 'Bulldog20' means, ultimately, that you don't want to talk to your constituents. If 'Bulldog20' was using 'Jack Smith' instead, but his name wasn't really 'Jack Smith' ... then what? Is it because it appears to be a Christian name that everything is OK?
The point being that you never really know who's using a nickname and who's not. But you have to recognize and respect the fact that the person behind the nickname is still an engaged and active citizen who wants to participate in the process, and that's to be applauded and not scoffed at.
As a commissioner, you are expected, if not damn near required, to listen to and heed the wishes and concerns of your constituents. It's perfectly understandable that, from time to time, you may or may not agree with them, and that if you do disagree it's fine for you vote in a contrary fashion to the majority of your constituents. However, you need to engage them and let them know why it is you voted the way you did.
And sometimes that means chatting with 'Bulldog20' ...
Mostly, the five commissioners on the GOC – not to be confused with the DOC – talked about starting up government blogs and Internet message boards, the idea being that the more ways citizens can get in touch with commissioners, the less they’ll want to show up at voting meetings.
The biggest concerns were whether they could censor obscene or libelous posts – no, said county Attorney Bill Berryman – and how to ensure everyone used their real names.
'I'm not going to talk to Bulldog20 or something like that,' Commissioner Doug Lowry said.
I think it's a good idea for the commission to find ways to increase participation and dialogue, and I'm always grateful for those elected officials who peruse my blog (and others) and offer a comment or two. My concern with Lowry's statement is that, well, as of now, that's how the blogosphere works.
Almost everyone operates under a nickname of some sort. For many, sure, it provides a sense of anonymity for folks who might fear reprisal or for folks who just want to comment as is. Anonymous quotes can be a little frustrating, particularly in a passionate conversation, but it's still someone who is putting up valid arguments and questions and concerns.
To say that you don't want to talk to 'Bulldog20' means, ultimately, that you don't want to talk to your constituents. If 'Bulldog20' was using 'Jack Smith' instead, but his name wasn't really 'Jack Smith' ... then what? Is it because it appears to be a Christian name that everything is OK?
The point being that you never really know who's using a nickname and who's not. But you have to recognize and respect the fact that the person behind the nickname is still an engaged and active citizen who wants to participate in the process, and that's to be applauded and not scoffed at.
As a commissioner, you are expected, if not damn near required, to listen to and heed the wishes and concerns of your constituents. It's perfectly understandable that, from time to time, you may or may not agree with them, and that if you do disagree it's fine for you vote in a contrary fashion to the majority of your constituents. However, you need to engage them and let them know why it is you voted the way you did.
And sometimes that means chatting with 'Bulldog20' ...
posted by Jmac at 6:38 AM
26 Comments:
Doug's comment shows a certain naivety.
There's no practical way for a blog to verify anyone's identity anyway.
If ACC starts blog, and wants people to use their real names, my alias will be "Blake Aued".
And mine will be "stopthebs"...
I am 100% in agreement with Doug. He definitely shouldn't reconsider his opinion on this matter.
-- Bulldog20
Yeah, well, it's smartass comments like those above that make me reluctant to deal with a bunch of vulgar, obscene crap from anonymous crackers and wannabe intellectuals.
An elected official is entitled, I say, to the deference and respect due his office. It's just not circumspect to let every dumbass who can get to the library and use the computers we paid for to comment ad nausem on the proceedings of the august ACC commission. That's what Carl Jordan is for.
Damn, there's no way to even tell if they are ACC registered voters, and if they aren't who gives a rat's behind about their opinions?
That's why I'm against a county blog, because there's no way to have a rational conversation (see above posts), or at least one I can dominate, and bitch slap anyone who disagrees with me.
FYI ... not really Doug Lowry.
Um, hey, I don't actually think that Doug Lowry needs to be talking to completely anonymous people. There are so many reasons why that is a bad idea, and none of them have to do with elitism.
That said, if the county blog is set up correctly it can allow for a high degree of certainty that one is actually talking to a real person who can be identified and served or dealt with.
FYI ... not really Doug Lowry.
You think?
Weren't you the ones who supported Doug Lowry in his race? Or at least aren't you part of the group (the Davisoniacs) that did?
If he knows he always has your support no matter what he does, then what incentive does he have to listen to you? Your complaints become impotent. He knows that as long as he has Heidi Davison's approval, you are going to vote for him in the end no matter how much you bitch and whine about him.
So leave the man alone. You were the ones who put him in office, rightly or wrongly. So suck it up.
Sounds like our commissioners need to look at the content of the responses and not the name next to the content.
Then again, it is very easy to set up blogs where you have to be confirmed in order to post comments. If they set up a set of guidelines I'd be more than happy to find the right piece of software to help them do what they want.
But I like the message Doug is sending - "This technology is too complicated for me and I think it is best to stick to what we know instead of forcing me to learn something new that can help us govern better."
First of all, this is really Blake. And I will prove it: JMac, I just saw you outside Barnett's two hours ago.
Second, Doug and Heidi are not exactly lovebirds.
Third, if the county did start some type of blog or message board and let people use handles, some people undoubtably use that as an excuse to publish unreasonable and obscene invective (Chuck Jones and Ed Vaughan excepted, that doesn't happen here or on my blog, but it does elsewhere).
Not only that, but if real names weren't used and verified, how would commissioners know they were speaking to a constituent and no someone from, say, Winder, or even Seattle, who they could care less about?
Let's compare it to speaking at a commission meeting. You are required to state your name and address, and if you hurl curses at someone, the cops would drag you out. How is an official government Web site any different?
The Real Blake
First of all, here is a funny opinon of anonymouses.
Second: Jack Kingston doesn't allow comments on his blog without the commenter signing in. Their screen name can be anything, but they have to have an account of some type. Though I don't agree with many of his positions, his blog is considered to be one of the best elected official blogs. The debate, when there is one, is lively and usually very, very civil. Probably because of the comment registration.
Third: Harry Reid's blog does allow anonymous comments. When I read regularly over there, it was a mess of inappropriate name calling and nonsense. I don't think people would take an ACC government blog or any comments too seriously if they had to wade through that garbage every day.
First of all Blake, it was I who pretended to be you earlier, cause I knew you would think it was funny.
Second, why doesn't the ABH offer blogs to the elected officials? Seems like an easy way to get them online. They can post if they want, or ignore it if they want, and ACC doesn't have to worry about the cost of maintaining.
And I can't think of any way to prove this is me. (or is it?)
Also, you can maintain rules and ask people to follow them with regard to civil discourse without having them verify their identities. It's quite simple to ban people who are cursing at you.
Why couldn't the blogs or boards be censored or moderated? Free speech concerns? If a person begins to say obscene things before the commission at a public session, certainly, as was suggested, the person's not going to be allowed to finish, right?
I mean, suppose someone links to goatse on the board. Why can't the government blog delete that link on a government site?
Yeah, but...as a constituent I really don't want my elected officials getting the impression that a particular issue is of importance to "the voters" when in fact "the voters" on the blog are paid shills, non-constituents, or otherwise not those who officials are supposed to serve.
I say this as someone who's run one of the neighborhood association listservs for about 7 years now. During contentious issues requiring neighborhood organization the number of people who want to join and don't want to identify their affiliation or downplay potentially harmful affiliations skyrockets. I imagine the same would occur on a government blog, if the blog was seen as powerful enough to bother interacting with.
After all, neighborhoods and actual constituents have a lot of emotional investment in this place, but petitioners who stand to profit have a strong incentive to use any means necessary and legal to protect their financial interests. And if they can comment anonymously, presenting themselves as people of the community, you can bet they will.
If someone posted a link to goatse on a commission board, I think they'd be well within their rights to post a lolcat in response.
Why couldn't the blogs or boards be censored or moderated?
This article from the Metro Spirit in Augusta that I referenced a few weeks back seems to indicate that you have the ability to censor some forms of online speech.
... as a constituent I really don't want my elected officials getting the impression that a particular issue is of importance to "the voters" when in fact "the voters" on the blog are paid shills, non-constituents, or otherwise not those who officials are supposed to serve.
How would the disclosure of identity remedy this problem? And, quite frankly, why is this a problem anyway? Even if someone doesn't live in a particular district, or community for that matter, doesn't mean they don't have the right to formulate and express opinions on something.
Sure, it would be weird if I went to the Butte, Montana government web site and started discussing cattle fees, but why should I be forbidden from doing so?
The concern, to me at least, appears to be whether or not obscene or overtly harmful language can be removed from those blogs and/or message boards and not whether someone can post as 'Bulldog20.'
Furthermore ... as you noted, email and listservs offer the same types of issues, but we don't advocate doing away with them. The folks on the commission are smart folks, and it isn't as if they're going to rely solely on the activity of a government blog to determine what issues are most important to the community.
First, there is no way that you can verify information unless you have something to check it against. The only way that credit cards work online is that the merchant has access to the card information and can verify it.
As anyone who has tried to trace down spam knows, you can make a message look like it came from about anywhere.
Secondly, as Jmac says, non-voters, non-residents, may have valuable input. They might offer their local experience on ACC projects, they might be affected by ACC actions (hotel-motel tax), they may just be brilliant.
Government agencies seem to have no reservations about spending gobs of money on out of town consultants, and studies, so why turn down the same service for free.
Finally, I can't believe that a politico would have such a tender skin as to get his or her panties/underpants (PC don't you know) in a wad over an internet comment. Everyone I've known from volunteer boards to Congressmen assures me that they receive plenty of invective as it is.
How would the disclosure of identity remedy this problem? And, quite frankly, why is this a problem anyway?
You have the right to weigh in on anything, as a resident of anywhere. But this is not the same as representing yourself as a concerned member of the community when in fact you are the representative of a non-local business whose economic interests are affected by the decisions of the commission. Requiring some level of validation -- as is done in other venues -- minimizes that risk. It also, done correctly, should allow elected officials to respond to those with issues -- which is the goal, right?
Note that I didn't suggest that anyone be forbidden from doing anything -- I simply want my elected officials to be aware of who they are dealing with, particularly since those who are most involved are identifiable. The rest of us need not know that information -- but that doesn't mean that some form of real-world identification isn't possible or desirable.
"Bill Overend":
Are you seriously suggesting we offer a blog to Carl Jordan? I don't think we have that kind of server space.
They call me ... Rebel20.
Actually, it's Blake. Fooled you!
Perhaps the Carl Jordan blog won't be as updated as often as you think. It's just when it does that you get the wall of text.
Johnathan, I'm not getting the vibe from the Metro Spirit article about how online speech can be censored with respect to the issues dealing with a government blog. I know about site moderation, since I've been very active in an online community where community moderators were both butt and savior. It just seems to me that what Blake was relating that Berryman said is that ACC couldn't censor the posts. I can see now that I just assumed this was about free speech, when it could have been that Berryman was making a technical judgment about the possibility of heavily moderating a website ("You can't prevent someone from posting a racist comment, but can only moderate them afterwards," might be something suggested, which would be wrong if it had been suggested).
I dunno. Blake, perhaps you could expand on what Berryman said?
Berryman said that the government censoring comments on its own web site would be a violation of the First Amendment. His point was not that site moderation would be difficult, but that it's not possible to moderate the site at all, unless ACC wants to get sued and lost.
Oops. That was Rebel20.
I'm not Blake but I stayed at the Bulldog Inn last night.
What Bill "PLEASE, Don't ask me hard questions I'm unprepared to answer" Berryman meant to say is that a government unit is not required to provide a forum for public comment, but if it does, those comments cannot be edited by the government due to the comments content.
That's why we are occasionally blessed with our downtown evangelists, who are free to call us whoremongers and sodomites.
Post a Comment
<< Home