On the Other Side of the Keyboard: The Problem of Anonymous Commenting

10/3/2016

ALICE KENNEDY
Volume 10, Issue 10
This article is a response to comments underneath last week's De Minimis article, MLS’ “Diversity Problem: It’s Just Not Going Away.
Last week, anonymous contributors used the De Minimis comment thread to post deeply ugly content. It is not the first time that a comments section has devolved into sledging. I have written for De Minimis several times. I care about maintaining it as a forum for law students to express themselves with their arguments, their insights and ideas. I am not prepared to see this publication used as a vehicle to anonymously victimise others.

That there is racism, sexism and classism in the law school is not surprising. That law students represent a diversity of views does not mean that those views are reflective of tolerance and equality. There’s a lot of prejudice here, if you bother to scratch the surface.

Some argue that there is merit in allowing these opinions to be aired unmoderated on De Minimis’ comment threads. Doing so exposes these undercurrents and makes them impossible to ignore. Indeed, last week, the commenters’ words proved the author’s point – that racism and marginalisation are real issues in the law school.

I have two concerns with this view.

Firstly, that this means of furthering debate comes at a potential cost to authors of De Minimis articles. Law students are brave, brilliant and ready to fight for what they believe in. They are able to defend themselves and willing to defend each other. However, I believe there ought to be a minimum standard of conduct upheld online to ensure that contributors do not feel deterred from expressing their ideas.

Last week, the comments written diverged from fuelling debate: they were designed to devalue the thoughtful contributions of others and to disenfranchise. In other instances, comments have been used to smear and bully. That kind of discourse should not be tolerated. I think that we have a responsibility to our contributors to provide a forum in which their ideas can be hotly debated without subjecting them to behaviour that is beyond the par.

According to De Minimis, a minimum standard is currently in place to ensure that “grossly offensive or discriminatory” content is deleted. In this case, it was stated that the comments came “close to, but did not breach this standard”. I would differ on that point. Accusing an author of being a liar, especially in that context, is grossly offensive and an unjustified attack on a person’s integrity. In any event, I would also suggest that moderation should extend to disabling the comment function on threads where comments descend into sledging.

My second concern is that commenters to De Minimis should be prepared to be held accountable for what they say, both generally and in particular cases such as these. Last week, I suspect the commenters knew their words went beyond being controversial. I suspect they would not dream of addressing people in real life the way the author was addressed online, because of the repercussions to their reputation. I can think of few people who would look kindly on what was said and I can think of fewer employers who would hire a person who openly expressed such views.

I do not believe De Minimis should be used as a means of attacking others at no cost to the perpetrator. Online commenters ought to own their words. To avoid the disinhibition and vitriol that anonymity enables, there should be a means of identifying commenters in case of future incidents that are not borderline, as this incident was judged to be.

There are two likely issues with this course of action: Firstly, it may not be possible to require commenters to post under verifiable names or to provide their email addresses so they are known to De Minimis moderators. However, I think that difficulty can be overcome. Secondly, it is also possible that removing or reducing anonymity would have an adverse effect: we might run the risk of fewer people commenting altogether. Unfortunately, anonymity is a double-edged sword.

Nonetheless, in spite of the risk of fewer comments being made, tempering anonymity would serve the valuable function of deterring inappropriate behaviour overall. And, if the JD Facebook page is anything to go by, I doubt that debate will actually be stifled. Moreover, if future behaviour amounted to repeated breaches of online standards or bullying, knowing the identity of the commenter would create an avenue for further action to be taken.

There is one last thing I would like to say, and that is to the unkind anonymous commenters, wherever they may be. In the real world, in your professional and personal lives, you will be measured by the content of your character, inclusive of your treatment of others. The person you are online is not divorced from the person you are in reality. It is a part of who you are. Ask yourself if the person you want to be is disrespectful and intolerant. Then ask yourself if you aspire to be someone better than that, and what you should do to make a change.

Alice Kennedy is a second-year JD student

The rest of this week's issue:

11 Comments

Jacqueline Thompson

10/4/2016 12:51:37 am

"Accusing an author of being a liar, especially in that context, is grossly offensive and an unjustified attack on a person’s integrity"... LOL

This article reads like a parody

Comments attacking integrity of an author are not "grossly offensive"

Secondly, allowing for anonymity allows discussion to be focused upon the content of discourse, not the identity commentator's identity

Anonymity has been a tool for criticism and commentary at all levels, for hundreds of years. The writers of the U.S. declaration of independence used false names, so did Mark Twain, and many female authors before we were accepted into the literary world

Your article does desribe some downsides of anonymity. It is a double edged sword. But you do not address the value that anonymity provides, I suspect because the value it provides to discourse is one that you may not recognise where the rest of us do, as the resulting discourse is 'grossly offensive' to you.

Toughen up, and join the debate to win hearts and minds like the rest of us have to do in the real world, where anonymous commentary is possible and rife

Alice Kennedy

10/4/2016 02:54:17 am

Thank you for contributing to the debate, Jacqueline - I am all for giving and receiving tough criticism.

I think that anonymity is only really justified when the protection it provides to the individual outweighs its misuse or abuse, or as you suggest, to really focus debate. I don't think there is a protection value here, nor do I think anonymity necessarily helps to focus commenters on the debate.

I actually think that removing anonymity (to some extent) is likely to encourage people to focus more on conducting debate mindfully. If people are aware their identity is public, or at least that they can be identified, then I think they will be more mindful of the impact of their words on others. I think it would raise the quality of debate overall.

The fact is that there is value in being able to identify commenters, both to encourage civility and provide an avenue for further action to be taken where necessary, as I stated in my article. I don't necessarily think we need to get rid of anonymous commenting absolutely, but it makes sense to be able to identify those who abuse the system.

Nameless

10/4/2016 04:13:26 am

"I don't think there is a protection value here, nor do I think anonymity necessarily helps to focus commenters on the debate."

You may not think it does but to provide an example: I comment anonymously and would only comment anonymously (due in part to the permenancy of online content) even in circumstances where my comment is something as uncontroversial as this. Not having anonymous commenting will remove me and others like me from the debate entirely, simply because I don't want to pen my name to any position in a public forum.

10/4/2016 04:18:59 am

Tim S (in defence of this comments section)

10/4/2016 01:09:08 am

Anonymous commenting - and I think, anonymous submissions to this magazine - need to be reduced. Not eliminated entirely: there may be good grounds for anonymous writing where a student would otherwise risk particular personal victimisation or their career development by going public on a topic. But otherwise, I think students should go public: not to name-and-shame people, but because they write better and more respectful content when they have skin-in-the-game and something is attached to themselves.

However, I think having recourse to the JD Facebook page as a place to debate articles is concerning. Earlier this year, I wrote an article in favour of lecture recordings for this magazine. Rather than respond here, or actually engage with any of my arguments, a fellow student chose to respond on the second-year JD page with ad hominem attacks against not only myself (calling me a "bully") but also a close family member. What made me more uncomfortable than his actual comments was that many other students who I had respected prior to this just uncritically "Liked" this student's harassment on the Facebook page.

The Facebook page creates a mentality of teams and camps. Here, there is no 'Like' button; if you're to respond, you're responding with an actual response to the article. While anonymity might need some work, this is still the best place to respond; or better yet, to respond with a well-reasoned article of your own, as Kai Liu has brilliantly done with own response to the same article from last week. Articulate, respectful disagreements should be encouraged; but the public contest of Facebook isn't a good fit.

Loulou Willis

10/4/2016 03:40:37 am

I think Alice was referring to the FB commentary to make the point that debate still flourishes when people make comments in their own names. Not that it should replace this comments section. I agree with you that this is the better forum!

10/4/2016 03:47:16 am

Yep, spot on Lou.

404 name not found

10/4/2016 03:32:27 am

I agree that moderating or removing anonymity to prevent trolling and personal abuse probably outweighs any consideration of encouraging debate through anonymity.

But I don't think it's evident that trolling and personal abuse are prevalent on this site. Even aggressive and uncharitable comments are not necessarily personal abuse. I don't think it's clear that the comments in Jasmine's article crossed over to abuse or breached the MLS professional behaviour guidelines, though I'm sure there is disagreement on that.

It's true that questioning a persons honesty is an attack in their character, but this is of a different class to attacks on character that centre on things like race, gender, etc. Especially in the context of journalistic ventures I don't think it's beyond the pale. Someone who uses a journalistic platform to put forth their position can't expect to be automatically believed or have their views not scrutinised

What I do find concerning though is the obsession of needing to identifying individuals making arguments rather than addressing the arguments themselves. It is clear that many find anonymity objectionable because it prevents them from tarring and feathering those who express heretical opinions.

And the threat of said tarring and feathering keeps people in line with prevailing dogma. You yourself speak of needing to 'hold people accountable' for 'beyond controversial views'. In the end it's just an exercise in suppressing opinions you don't like.

10/4/2016 03:43:37 am

Thank you, 404 Name Not Found

I'd say you and I differ on what's considered grossly offensive, and that's absolutely fine - even De Minimis moderators didn't consider the standards to have been breached in this instance. For me, it was as much about where the comments ended up as where they began. At the least, the thread should have been disabled.

I don't believe in preventing aggressive commenting, or questioning of others views. On the contrary, I encourage it. I even think (giving people the benefit of the doubt) there would have been a way to question Jasmine's point of view appropriately.

What I question is whether comments would have been phrased the way they were, and whether things would have got so out of hand, if the commenters had identified themselves, or known that they could be identified.

I've gone back through a few articles - you'd be surprised at some of the comments - and honestly I think that diminishing anonymity is the responsible thing to do. There is merit in doing so. It's about addressing a trend of behaviour, improving the quality of debate and creating accountability.

Overall, I would still say that the points I have outlined in my article and comments above stand, and are solid grounds for changing the way the comment threads work.

4̢̖̗̳ͭ̈0̲̪̘͛̇ͥ̈̀4̴̠̻̃̑̿ ̹͕̑̋ͭ̐̉͟N͕̪̅̔̎ͣͦ͞A͉̹̻̱̎̏̃͝M̯̠͙̮̖̘͌ͯͭͩÈ̬̯̮̘͓̣ ̱̗͎̝͂̈̂͂͗̀N̛̑̔ͫ͆͆̾ͫO̜̳̤̞̞̺͖͌͒ͬT̡͕̖͎͔̮͙̬̄ͪͫ͗̃ͫ̂ ̷̮̖̖̑ͥ̆̐ͅFͨ̈́̊ͬ̏ͩ

10/4/2016 04:12:36 am

I agree that the sentiments in most of those comments could be put in more civil terms, but a more likely result of removing anonymity would be that such sentiments would not be expressed in any terms.

I wonder, for example, how many students would be willing to put their real names to an argument against gay marriage, even if articulated in the most civil of terms. I suspect the number is in the range of 0. The vilification they would receive from the opinion police would simply not be worth it.

The result is a suppression of non-mainstream views. Many people might be fine with that, who wants to give a platform to opinions they think are abhorent afterall. It's still suppression.

10/4/2016 04:29:23 am

Dear 404 Name Note Found and Nameless,

If I can address both your comments with one comment, that should probably be it for the evening.

I doubt that debate overall will be diminished if online commenting is no longer permitted to be anonymous. It is possible, but it's a risk I think we can safely take. At the heart of it, I still think that commenters should own their words.

At any rate, a further or alternative option which I canvassed in the article (which you can read above) is the possibility of making commenters identifiable through the verification of their email addresses prior to commenting. This would not be visible to everyone, presumably, but it would still create the requisite level of accountability, especially if online standards were breached.

On the Other Side of the Keyboard: The Problem of Anonymous Commenting

Leave a Reply.