Quinn—I agree that over-use of anonymous & burner accounts is becoming a significant problem in EA Forum (and in social media generally).
To put this in the broader context of cancel culture: there seems to be a common Gen Z/Millennial narrative that says: ‘Older established professionals actively seek any possible reason to penalize, ostracize, and harm any younger people who speak up, complain, or criticize any aspect of current practices, systems, and ideas; these older professionals are ruthless, biased, unforgiving, and eager to harm our reputations and careers; they pay enormous attention to everything we say, and they never forget or forgive any criticism; therefore, the only possible response is for us to make our complaints and criticisms from behind the veil of anonymous burner accounts’.
I think that’s usually a false, harmful, and self-defeating narrative, and it seems especially inaccurate applied to EA culture. But it’s a very useful narrative, because it empowers people to engage in cancel culture, anonymously and self-righteously, hiding behind the moral armor of ‘I’m so brave to speak up at all, and look, it’s so dangerous to do so that I had to use an anonymous burner account’.
Then, the anonymity and lack of accountability often leads the burner accounts to make vague smears and third-hand slanders against individuals, organizations, and subcultures—which is the central source of power in cancel culture.
The harm comes from over-estimating the attentiveness, memory, and vengefulness of older professionals, over-estimating the risks of speaking up using one’s own name and voice, and reinforcing the cancel culture narrative that only anonymous complaints are safe—and that common use of anonymous accounts is self-fulfilling proof that only anonymous complaints are safe.
Thus, over-use of anonymous and burner accounts leads to a misleading impression that a subculture is much more dangerous, vengeful, and unwelcoming than it really is.
This situation is especially annoying to some of us older established professionals who don’t hide behind anonymity, and who have actually suffered decades of ostracism, marginalization, career setbacks, and reputational harm from speaking out about unpopular social, scientific, and political issues. I know literally dozens of academic colleagues who have had the guts to say true and ethical things that happen to fall outside the current Overton window, and who have lost jobs, grants, friends, and many other opportunities as a result.
If EAs can’t cultivate the courage to say what we really think, to each other, using our own names and accounts, how will we maintain the courage to say what we really think to the general public, or to donors, legislators, or future employers?
Quinn—I agree that over-use of anonymous & burner accounts is becoming a significant problem in EA Forum (and in social media generally).
To put this in the broader context of cancel culture: there seems to be a common Gen Z/Millennial narrative that says: ‘Older established professionals actively seek any possible reason to penalize, ostracize, and harm any younger people who speak up, complain, or criticize any aspect of current practices, systems, and ideas; these older professionals are ruthless, biased, unforgiving, and eager to harm our reputations and careers; they pay enormous attention to everything we say, and they never forget or forgive any criticism; therefore, the only possible response is for us to make our complaints and criticisms from behind the veil of anonymous burner accounts’.
I think that’s usually a false, harmful, and self-defeating narrative, and it seems especially inaccurate applied to EA culture. But it’s a very useful narrative, because it empowers people to engage in cancel culture, anonymously and self-righteously, hiding behind the moral armor of ‘I’m so brave to speak up at all, and look, it’s so dangerous to do so that I had to use an anonymous burner account’.
Then, the anonymity and lack of accountability often leads the burner accounts to make vague smears and third-hand slanders against individuals, organizations, and subcultures—which is the central source of power in cancel culture.
The harm comes from over-estimating the attentiveness, memory, and vengefulness of older professionals, over-estimating the risks of speaking up using one’s own name and voice, and reinforcing the cancel culture narrative that only anonymous complaints are safe—and that common use of anonymous accounts is self-fulfilling proof that only anonymous complaints are safe.
Thus, over-use of anonymous and burner accounts leads to a misleading impression that a subculture is much more dangerous, vengeful, and unwelcoming than it really is.
This situation is especially annoying to some of us older established professionals who don’t hide behind anonymity, and who have actually suffered decades of ostracism, marginalization, career setbacks, and reputational harm from speaking out about unpopular social, scientific, and political issues. I know literally dozens of academic colleagues who have had the guts to say true and ethical things that happen to fall outside the current Overton window, and who have lost jobs, grants, friends, and many other opportunities as a result.
If EAs can’t cultivate the courage to say what we really think, to each other, using our own names and accounts, how will we maintain the courage to say what we really think to the general public, or to donors, legislators, or future employers?