There will be no enumeration by me right now (you’re encouraged to try in the comments) of the vastly different types of anonymous forum participation. The variance in reasons people have for not committing posts and comments is broad, and I would miss at least one.
Separately, I’d like to take a moment to mourn the fact that this short note about movement drama can be expected to generate more comments than my effortposts about my actual work can hope to get.
But I think it’s important to point out, for anyone who hasn’t noticed yet, that the presence of burner accounts is a signal we’re failing at something.
I would like to say that I feel like a coward when I hold my tongue for reputational considerations, without anyone who’s utilized a burner account hearing me and responding with “so you’re saying I’m a coward”. There are too many reasons out there for people to partake in burner accounts for me to say that.
I’m normally deeply sympathetic to romantic discussions of the ancient internet values, in which anonymity was a weapon against the biases of status and demographic. I usually lament the identityfication of the internet that comes up around the time of facebook. But there is a grave race to the bottom of integrity standards when we tolerate infringements on anyone’s ability—or indeed their inclination—to tell the truth as they see it and own the consequences of standing up and saying it.
I’m much more saying “if burner account users are correctly or rationally responding to the environment (with respect to whatever risk tolerance they have), then that’s a signal to fix the environment” than I am saying “burner account users are not correct or rational”. But I think at the margin, some of the burnerified comments I’ve seen have crossed the line into, I say as I resist a perceptible urge to say behind a burner account, actual cowardice.
The number of burner accounts is too damn high
I’d like to take a moment to mourn what the discourse doesn’t have.
It’s unfortunate that we don’t trust eachother.
Buck’s comment.
There will be no enumeration by me right now (you’re encouraged to try in the comments) of the vastly different types of anonymous forum participation. The variance in reasons people have for not committing posts and comments is broad, and I would miss at least one.
Separately, I’d like to take a moment to mourn the fact that this short note about movement drama can be expected to generate more comments than my effortposts about my actual work can hope to get.
But I think it’s important to point out, for anyone who hasn’t noticed yet, that the presence of burner accounts is a signal we’re failing at something.
Think of how much more this excellent comment of Linch’s would have meant if the OP was out and proud.
I would like to say that I feel like a coward when I hold my tongue for reputational considerations, without anyone who’s utilized a burner account hearing me and responding with “so you’re saying I’m a coward”. There are too many reasons out there for people to partake in burner accounts for me to say that.
I’m normally deeply sympathetic to romantic discussions of the ancient internet values, in which anonymity was a weapon against the biases of status and demographic. I usually lament the identityfication of the internet that comes up around the time of facebook. But there is a grave race to the bottom of integrity standards when we tolerate infringements on anyone’s ability—or indeed their inclination—to tell the truth as they see it and own the consequences of standing up and saying it.
I’m much more saying “if burner account users are correctly or rationally responding to the environment (with respect to whatever risk tolerance they have), then that’s a signal to fix the environment” than I am saying “burner account users are not correct or rational”. But I think at the margin, some of the burnerified comments I’ve seen have crossed the line into, I say as I resist a perceptible urge to say behind a burner account, actual cowardice.