Smerconish: Anonymity Breeds Bad Behavior

Thursday, March 07, 2013

Michael Smerconish, while guest host on MSNBC's Hardball, devoted a commentary to how anonymous comments on websites encourage "savagery online" and discourage real debate, citing the Washington Post site as an example. He thinks commenters should be forced to use real names -- such as by logging in with their Facebook account. "Anonymity breeds bad behavior," Smerconish said. "It's time to figure out a way to rein in those who denigrate the level of conversation. If you want to stand on a soapbox in the town square, we still get to see your face."

Posted by HeuristicGratis at 09:30 PM | 30 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

RSS Feed

Author Info

HeuristicGratis

Joined 2013/01/14
Visited 2013/05/18

Status: user

MORE STORIES

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Left Note on Boat (35 comments) ...

Eric Holder Just Doesn't Know: Or So He Says (3 comments) ...

Sit Down Restaurants Worse for You Than Fast Food (16 comments) ...

'We're Getting the Big Stories Wrong' (27 comments) ...

NBC Refuses to Identify Hicks as Hillary/Obama Supporter (14 comments) ...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

I'd say what I think of this clown, but I'd be moderated to the corn field.

#1 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-07 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Caveat: Anonymity breeds bad behavior UNLESS the site is rigorously moderated. Then everyone behaves......sorta.

#2 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-07 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Whenever I post comments at online newspaper sites such as the NYT and WaPo I always use my real name. It makes me more cautious to say only what I mean, and to avoid snarkiness. On a site like this though, which feeds off of a certain level of partisan mud slinging and nastiness, it generally would be unwise to use real names.
One more reason for Rcade to get the unmodified thread in place, so he can then really clamp down on all the otherthreads.

#3 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-07 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

so, i could say my name was anything i wanted.
smerconish is wrong promoting a compkete end to internet privacy.

i can say what i want in public without having to wear a name tag--nor be moderated by police.

#4 | Posted by ichiro at 2013-03-07 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

So the 1% can hide behind a 503c to avoid the backlash of their opinions but this guy thinks normal people should not have the same advantage?

Who is Smerconish really working for

#5 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2013-03-07 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is truth to this. We've seen plenty of it here. But even someone like the rude pundit is better informed than most broadcast journalists. Most people do not understand what happened in 2008, or what US foriegn policy is all about, or how the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air for the 1% for immoral political reasons, but steadfastly refuses to do it for the other 99% of the country, because all they care about are their Banking shareholders that control the issuance of money.

For example there really is no such thing as US foriegn aid. At least its extremely rare. Its really a loan with conditions damaging to the target country. They must spend the money on US products and services, sell us their natural resources and labor at discounted prices, pay interest on the loan which is labeled "aid", and we kill them if they don't accept everything on our terms.

#6 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-03-07 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

If I had to use my real name I would quit posting. Where I live, use of my real name to express my opinions could significantly damage my business.

#7 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2013-03-07 10:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cornfield.....cornfield....cor
nfield....

#8 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-07 10:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unfortunately you have left wing socialists that if a doner or poster's name is used they try to destroy them. The businessman in Idaho that gave a big hunk of money to a republican cause, I do not want to get into the democrat/republican thing,and his name became public. They tried real hard to destroy this persons business and personel life.

This is the kind of behavior that creates the need for anonymity. This is also the reason many, many very well qualified and competent people on both sides will never run for office. Perhaps we need to look at some way to allow these zealots to be libel for what they say, ruin a few of them and then we may be able to get past this, Bill Mahr comes to mind. Don't hold your breath as I do not see this happening anytime soon.

As for Smeconish, when he comes on our local station I will turn off the radio rather than listen to him. For the most part he is on late at night (that usually tells you a whole lot), except in Raleigh where the staion is using him until they can find someone in the morning slot.

#9 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-03-07 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

" The businessman in Idaho that gave a big hunk of money to a republican cause,"

Pssst.....Idaho is a Republican state.

#10 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-07 10:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

So???? He gave a bunch of money to one of the republican presidential candidates, the left wing descended on Idaho and went through all the public records trying to destroy him and his business. They were not successful but they did slow his business down temporarily. They were not from Idaho they just were the usual left wing zealots that seem to be a big part of the democrat party.

#11 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-03-07 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Butthurt. Got it.

#12 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-07 10:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

The notion that we need internet anonymity to be/stay free is absolutely ludicrous.

My evidence? The years 1776 through 1980ish. During that time frame freedom only increased (except for regulatory laws, which got worse, a trend that has continued to this day and cant really be blamed on the net...)

#13 | Posted by USAF242 at 2013-03-07 11:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a big mistake bush did by invading Iraq. What a waste of people and money for nothing.

#14 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-07 11:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Savegery of the TRUTH. Even more extreme is blogging the truth in your own name. It could cost life itself - like it did for Jesus.

Thankfully, Jesus, Howard Roarke, John Gault, Harrold Finch... transform fictional stories into our hearts - and LIVE FOREVER. So do I.

#15 | Posted by reitze at 2013-03-08 12:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

For those who loved not the truth could not be saved (2 Thess 2)

Legend in 2049 (reitze)

#16 | Posted by reitze at 2013-03-08 12:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Anonymous posting runs the risk of conversations falling into verbal attacks, but even these I find valuable, because it is only with anonymous posting is the veneer of social custom peeled away enough for people to reveal who they are and what they actually think and feel. Sites like this let me know what people really think when they are not worried about political correctness or holding a position or belief that may be surprising or even shocking to friends and peers.

Anonymous posting may not always be pretty, but it often reveals what is below the surface. For that, it is worth it.

The Romans use to say "in vino veritas." In wine there is truth. In other words, people will say what they really think when inebriated. While that is still accurate, I would also add for our computer blogging age, "In anonymity there is truth."

#17 | Posted by Grendel at 2013-03-08 09:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

It doesn't breed it; it releases it. Grendel (I am using him only because he posted before me and is a great example) doesn't act badly and he is as anonymous as the rest of us. I don't think I do. The reason: it is not in us. I think people who are arses here are also in real life; maybe not as extreme as here, but still quite unpleasant.

A mask makes it easier, but doesn't create it. And it also works the other way which is why Halloween is such fun.

#18 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 09:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

#18 The real information is from his segment on his radio show where he discussed the study. I caught the end of the discussion so I missed the name of the study analyst and the title of the study itself.

At the tail end of that discussion it was discussed that the state in which the news item is discussed heavily dictates how the news consumer feels about and interprets the news item.

It is a dangerous situation.

#19 | Posted by heuristicgratis at 2013-03-08 09:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think people who are arses here are also in real life; maybe not as extreme as here, but still quite unpleasant.
A mask makes it easier, but doesn't create it. And it also works the other way which is why Halloween is such fun.

I agree Kanrei.

At the same time, I would say that for many the anonymous handles are not masks at all. This anonymity allows people to strip away the mask that they wear in real life. I would bet that many of the people who are arses here do not appear so to their family, friends and colleagues. They would be shocked to read what they say.

Sites like this gives me insight into human nature because it strips away the mask.

#20 | Posted by Grendel at 2013-03-08 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

" blogging the truth in your own name. It could cost life itself - like it did for Jesus."

What Would Jesus Blog ???

#21 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-08 09:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

" I think people who are arses here are also in real life"

I doubt that's true, in fact I would posit the opposite. Those who can get under people's skins anonymously do so for that precise reason, they are anonymous. Whether it's with family or work, when people know who you are and you have either your job or your status as husband, father, etc., to restrain you, you think twice - plus, it is more likely you actually care about those other people, because you know them personally. When everyone is faceless, nameless (truly) it is much easier to be extreme in either position or retort. In other words, if you knew someone who said "kittens are neat!" is really an 11 year old girl with terminal cancer, you'd be less likely to bag on her.

#22 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-08 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

....except Chair.

#23 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-08 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

#22 Why wouldn't one care about people just because they are faceless?

It is a daunting thing to think of all the people affected by family members and friends dying each and every day. Millions of people die all the time, and those people are precious to someone.

Faceless people are just as valuable and deserving of respect as anyone else.

#24 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-03-08 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Forced. A term in vogue I guess.

Forced health care. Forced gun control. Forced this and that. "The home of the free and the forced"

#25 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-03-08 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

The really sick thing is when a poster has multiple personality disorder so that some of the on-line personae are jerks and the others quite pleasant.

#26 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-08 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Right... because everybody uses their real names on Facebook.

sniggers

#27 | Posted by sentinel at 2013-03-08 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

The really sick thing is when a poster has multiple personality disorder so that some of the on-line personae are jerks and the others quite pleasant.
#26 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-08 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag: sick

Ge mod how judgmental of you while using a fake name. Is that what you really think or are you just having fun stirring the conversation?

And is that a sick thing to do - or are you just trying to find a line on abusive? Obeviously there are many here who use anon names both here and elsewhere... so all their posts should be filtered by their social connections and employers? if so then that really is 'sick'.

#28 | Posted by reitze at 2013-03-09 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

.... ""Anonymity breeds bad behavior,"

**** Especially when the Anonymous People involved have SECRET TORTURE PRISONS,DRONES & KILL LISTS!

#29 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2013-03-09 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Americans need to squash this "no more anonymity movement" in the bud. We have a right to anonymously express opinions and political anonymity as a means to protect our security, just as we have a right to secret ballot. The public has no right to know and track our individual political views.

The American Revolution of 1776 was based upon anonymous political views. The precursor to the anonymous internet were the anonymous bulletins posted on trees by the Patriots against the Tory loyalists and British. NYC was coincidentally then the Tory capital of the USA and they referred to it as Torytown.

While Michael Smerconish likely supports moneyed donors to AIPAC and other government control groups and lobbyists to receive anonymity, he wants to track the views of average Americans. Those political views can get them fired, but he wants a requirement that their real names be used. That is why many newspaper website comments require Facebook and real names be used, yet the newspaper editorial page is anonymous.

Oddly the same people pushing for gun control are pushing for no more anonymity. The basis for it is pushed by pro Israeli neocons such as ADL, Smerconish, and Facebook's Zuckerberg. They want to remove the individual's right of privacy and security under the belief it will squelch criticism of Israel and anti-Zionist speech from the internet.

If we permit such propaganda we will soon see an FBI warning on the opening page of all browsers that any use of other than real name will result in a $500K fine and 5 years in prison, just as Hollywood was able to obtain from Congressional puppets to protect their interests and cheap DVDs? They want to control our beliefs and writings.

#30 | Posted by Robson at 2013-03-09 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag: