I attended a fascinating lecture and panel discussion this afternoon organized by the Icelandic division of PEN, entitled Censorship/Suppression/Self-Censorship.
As the title suggests, the idea was to question whether a silent type of censorship and suppression has existed in Icelandic society, whether members of the media have practiced censorship out of fear of repercussions from their owners or other powerful interest groups, whether the size of Icelandic society and the propensity for shielding friends, relatives and acquaintances has resulted in media censorship, and generally whether suppression has been prevalent in the various social sectors here.
Predictably, a fair bit of attention was focused on the failure of the Icelandic media to address the warning signs in the lead-up to the bank collapse. One of the panelists, writer Guðmundur Andri Thorsson, undoubtedly spoke for many of us when he said that he struggled to understand just how all of this could have happened right before our eyes – although to my mind he had answered his own question a short while earlier by saying that, in his view, we all bought into the ideology that was so prevalent at the time: that we were absolutely on the right track, that we’d found a new way of making money and that it would just keep coming and coming and coming. It was a way of living that just about everyone was delighted with [why wouldn't they be] – and hence we didn’t ask any questions. [Although I still maintain that the whole money-making trend thing kind of bypassed me ... it wasn't a part of my immediate environment and if anything I remained resolutely ignorant of commerce or economics because I had zero interest in those matters at the time. Which of course means I was probably just being lulled into complacency like everyone else.]
Knowing what we know now, it is bizarre to think back and realize how completely oblivious the media seemed to what was happening. One of the keynote speakers this afternoon was Friðrik Þór Guðmundsson and he summarized pretty well what it was like: there were reports from abroad that the Icelandic banks were in trouble and the economy was shaky, the Icelandic media [mostly Morgunblaðið, it seems] then reported on those reports, after which they turned to the Icelandic bankers for comment. They, in turn, resolutely claimed that everything was fine, it was all based on a misunderstanding — and the Icelandic media totally bought it [likely as a result of Guðmundur Andri's theory, see above]. Friðrik Þór quite aptly wondered why not a single investigative reporter was put on the case to investigate the claims, or why supposedly hard-hitting news magazines like Kompás [which incidentally was produced by a station owned by Baugur Group -- and which has since been discontinued] went to town on stories about pedophiles and suchlike and never investigated anything remotely linked to banking or commerce.
The issue was also raised of the current political appointments within the banks and how much power is afforded to those particular individuals – they hold the future of any number of businesses in their hands, can essentially decide which of them will survive and which will die. A related point came up concerning the sale of Morgunblaðið a couple of weeks ago to a consortium of businessmen, some of whom are openly affiliated with the Independence Party – and that there was a clause in the contract stipulating that the price should remain confidential. The bank, of course, that sold Morgunblaðið to that consortium is a bank now under public ownership – so do we, the public, not have a right to that information? If nothing else, the move is certainly not designed to inspire confidence and trust in the buzzword “transparency” that seems to be on everyone’s lips these days.
Anyway, impossible to do justice to all the important issues raised – however, I must mention one that hit very close to home. The discussion turned to blogs and the web in general, and the question of anonymity – in particular people who blog anonymously, and not least those who leave comments anyonymously on the web, or under a pseudonym. Many felt that this is a growing problem – the forums that by nature are open and democratic have, in this sense, turned in on themselves, allowing people to write whatever they please without having to take responsibility for their words. This can have extreme consequences, such as when commenters engage in defamation or slander of others, for example their political opponents.
I’m guilty of this myself – when I started blogging I didn’t use my full name, more out of a sense of timidity than anything else. As time went on it became less of an issue and while I didn’t exactly plaster my name across every post I didn’t mind it being on the page [discreetly, in the footer]. Meanwhile, I’ve noticed that [some] comments written under a pseudonym have become increasingly aggressive and troll-like in nature, to the point where I have begun questioning where the boundaries lie. Should people be permitted to voice extreme opinions that in some cases border on the obscene – all under a false name? I’ll be honest: at times I am appalled at what people allow themselves to say in this space, all under the cloak of anonymity, but I delete only the most offensive comments. Should I, as a blogger, require anyone who wishes to voice such opinions on my blog to come clean and say who they are – make them take responsibility for their words? Is that, as it were, my responsibility as the publisher of this particular medium? — There are no easy answers – but I will say that one of the panelists there today urged bloggers to start banning anonymous comments.
Of course, there are also instances where anonymous comments backfire and cause no end of trouble for the commenter – especially when they’re about to run for public office. I’ll saynomore.
And on that note, I’d love to have your views, dear readers: are you in favour of or opposed to anonymous comments or comments under a pseudonym – why or why not?
WINDY AND FAIRLY MISERABLE
Pretty much sums up the weather today, although the ‘miserable’ part is fairly subjective and related to my still-utterly-annoying chest infection. I walked to the lecture and struggled against the wind on the way back – it was pretty cold, particularly as the sun – which was out this morning and early afternoon – had all but disappeared. Our thoughts were with my eldest stepdaughter who was driving back to Akureyri today with her boyfriend – apparently it was pretty icky up there, people advised to stay off the roads, etc. But we just got word that they made it OK. Right now it’s -2°C [28F], sunrise was at 8:10 am and sunset at 7:08 pm. The wind is still howling out there as we speak!
{ 24 comments }
If we have something to say then we must sign our names to it.
We must put our heads above the parapet or keep quiet.
I generally favor free speech with responsibility. However, you are the Queen of your own blog and can dictate your own policies. If someone wants a completely open forum, they are available, but you can allow whatever you wish on IWR.
As Jon said, it is your blog, you get to set the rules. Having said that, I am in favour of anonymous comments. Yes, some people abuse them, but a timid person with a very good point might speak up anonymously, but not if they had to sign it. Signing things leaves one open to reprisals. Sometimes, one deserves them, sometimes not.
I don’t think anonymous blog comments caused or even exacerbated the kreppa. This sounds like misdirected anger, to my ear. A blog is, at best, a conversation. Transparency in an online conversation is not in the same league with the Morgunblaðið sale, and should not be held to the same standards.
I could see where Icelanders might be more apt to use a pseudonym when commenting on a blog because the population is small and there’s more fear of offending some acquaintance. But then again, when reading this blog, many of the Icelandic commentators seem to use their real names (at least on first name basis). In my experience living here, Icelanders are pretty proud of their own opinions and individuality. ; ‘ )
From my observations, most of the “troll-like” or crazy comments seem to come from a handful of foreigners who enjoy watching the demise of this country. While some people use pseudonyms (because they’re using their email nickname or blogger name) that’s OK I guess for the sake of convenience and habit, but if you have something to say and think you’re a know-it-all, then by all means grow up and use your real name. That’s my 2 cents. I choose to use my real name because I assume nobody knows me in Iceland anyway.
Thanks, everyone.
Lissa – I didn’t mean to suggest a direct relationship between the kreppa and anonymous blog comments!! Indeed, that would be a bit extreme – and would undermine the credibility of the fine organization that PEN is. No – these discussions were all over the board today and I’m just picking out two separate issues, NOT suggesting there is a direct relationship between the two!
Jessica – if everyone in Iceland did know you, would it matter?
I guess what I’m wondering about is, if you’ve got something to say, why would you need to say it behind a pseudonym?
Also, I agree with you about this: most of the “troll-like” or crazy comments seem to come from a handful of foreigners who enjoy watching the demise of this country. It’s the people who are the most obnoxious who raise the questions about the legitimacy of anonymity and pseudonyms.
That is a bit of a dilemma. It seems that there may be point (in the case of IWR at least) when a line is crossed and the blog becomes a different thing from when it started. Obviously, in your case, circumstances beyond your control have accelerated this process. As the others have stated, IWR is yours, its content reflects upon you, therefore you have the right to set limits. It isn’t such a hardship that a commenter should have to give a legitimate email and/or blogsite address.
In most countries blog comments are not taken seriously, since everyone know that comments are anonymous or pseudo-nonymous. It is up to the readers themselves to filter the comments and decide what is true or not, not unlike the process of recycling at a rubbish dump.
At the Guardian, Telegraph, Observer et al, there are often extensive comments after news articles. A few are very good, some are medium good, and many are rubbish. Even when registration is required, the majority of posts are “not useful”.
So it is with Iceland. At the popular Eyjan site, there are many, many comments following the main news stories. Some are very good, many are sincere but offer no new facts or little analysis, and a few are abusive or trollish. People can figure out which is which. And in fact the trolls and cranks and liars often serve a useful purpose, since they function as an excuse to re-argue important issues. If a blogger filters or censors, you just get replies like, “Good post, I agree, you’re brilliant, thanks”, which are basically useless. Is that the better alternative?
For instance, I just read an anonymous post that said that Sigurdur Einarsson & wife, a Kaupthing big-whig who supposedly loaned billions to himself, invited several other couples for a luxury weekend abroad, but they all turned him down. Is it just scurrilous gossip? Is it libelous? It’s interesting. If it’s true, what does it mean? Well, you can decide for yourself.
>and that there was a clause in the contract stipulating that the price should remain confidential
Morgunbladid, via Iceland Review, says ISK 1.7bn. Or at least that’s how I read it.
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16567&ew_0_a_id=320845
I wonder what the other Steve offered for it?
I would not comment negatively anonymously.
I would not comment negatively under a pseudonym.
I would not comment negatively using my real name for that matter.
I would just move on. The web is a big place, plenty more to see and do.
There is enough negativity in the world without me adding to it.
I might comment in a humorously negative way using a pseudonym.
Maybe if it is malicious in intent then it is not okay?
If one can be clever and witty about it, and get a point across without being nasty or rude, then maybe that is okay?
Respect should still be conveyed.
I like to see the communities on the web get along as much as possible.
We all need to care more about each other.
(You are asking for our opinions after all, so this is mine)
In general, I think anonymity invites abuse on the Internet. One of the most eloquent arguments against anonymity can be found here: http://economicdisaster.wordpress.com/the-greater-internet-fuckwad-theory/.
I sympathize with the timid and see the need in special cases for sheltered identities. But what I find interesting is that in Iceland, because it is so small, all the confidential dirt is public in the form of slúður (gossip) anyway. If the slúður were transformed into fréttir (news), then people would have to take action against the spilling (corrruption). There. That’s the extent (almost) of my Icelandic.
I thought Eygló nailed it in http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_life/?cat_id=16571&ew_0_a_id=320872
I can’t hide in a tub of whey so I stay away.
Well, I’d vote for continuing to allow comments from pseudonyms. But, being just a firstname myself, I’m not sure whether such a vote would carry much weight – perhaps it’s worth half a vote
The web is both enduring (even after text deletion) and searchable, so comments can follow you for life – and are available to employers, clients, agencies, etc. Enforcing that level of responsibility sounds a bit scary to me…
I would agree with Lissa and Flygill — part of the appeal of the internet for many people is the opportunity to discourse anonymously. Sometimes those people are malicious, sometimes they’re not. Some people don’t feel that they can speak openly under their real name, and to insist on it would likely cut down on the interesting debate (and anyhow, anyone can make up an identity online, so anonymous or not is really irrelevant). It’s up to the blogger to decide where to draw the line in terms of allowing comments, and up to the reader to decide what’s useful.
My name here is a pseudonym, and I generally prefer it that way. It allows for a degree of anonymity in what is otherwise a very public forum (the internet). I presume however that anyone that really cared to could make the connection, and moreover it is just good policy to say exactly what one means. Call it karma.
I do not believe in censorship, self-imposed or not. Possibly some small exception for a certain degree of discretion and politeness, but generally I feel one does themselves and all others a disservice to not be as honest as possible.
Anonymity (or perception thereof) may allow some to speak truths they would otherwise be afraid to voice, others to abuse the opportunity. In either event the reader may learn a great deal about who and what they are. I’d have no objection to putting my given name to anything I believe, but the greater censorship probably comes in what we haven’t yet allowed ourselves to think or feel. It will take more than mere anonymity, or lack thereof, to address that.
As far as the Icelandic economy is concerned, I’ve watched this with great interest. Many of the underlying fundamentals seem a microcosm of what other societies are facing. Most particularly the United States, as this one I’m most familiar with. A far larger and more diverse economy, with more latitude, although this a double edged sword. My feeling that whether the US, Iceland, or elsewhere that we have yet to suffer the worst of that wrought. Yet that Iceland may be in a position to recover more quickly and fully than many another seemingly stronger country. Far from certain, of course, and yet to be decided. But as a small, relatively homogeneous and educated society all problems might be focused upon more easily. Also, despite importing nearly everything, that Iceland seems well positioned to provide the basics of food and shelter to all its people. Additionally, resources that might allow for more agriculture, and such things as data centers, that would allow monies to buy desired items. This seems possible.
In comparison the US seems to me far more troubled. Not immediately, but the worst has yet to emerge. One might find any number of indicators in the news. Yet in now having a capable president, my feeling this country has yet to find its way and is lost in too many needless and destructive directions. But then also that as painful as this correction may be that it is exactly that, that it was needed and also an opportunity. This country and world might now reassess the direction they were headed, perhaps now choose a better path forward.
Anyway, anonymity or not, hopefully at least an honest discourse. And a good degree of transparency wouldn’t hurt either.
I think we can’t ban anonymous commenting and blogging, but of course a blogger must be able to weed out things that might be libel or slander, since normally the blogger is responsible for what says on his or her page, when you can’t find out who actually wrote the comment.
But I must say something about Guðmundur Andri’s assertation that: ‘we all bought into the ideology that was so prevalent at the time: that we were absolutely on the right track, that we’d found a new way of making money and that it would just keep coming and coming and coming.’
I really hate when people say this, because we didn’t ALL buy this. I, and quite a few others have never been able to accept this and have had countless arguments about it, but no, those lefties didn’t understand the economy, no we didn’t. It just seemed like such a pyramid scam – which it of course was and just like in all other pyramid scams the little man on the bottom pays.
Hey, there are other reasons for anonymity you know – for instance if my employees spotted my various postings with my real name attached (not just here) they might wonder if I was doing any work at all…. (hypothetically of course!)
A dear friend of mine used to say that her house was , clean enough to be healthy, and dirty enough to be happy… It`s your house, do as you see fit.
Thanks for the input, everyone.
Just to clarify – it’s not so much that I’m asking for your thoughts on whether I should ban anonymous comments or not, I’m just generally wondering how readers view these things. I can see both sides of the argument, myself, and I really like Paul H’s comment above – I think it’s a great policy if you want to write negative, belligerent or malicious comments to do so under your own name, otherwise just skip it. But of course those who write those sorts of comments are generally too cowardly to do so under their real names.
I like to keep my tj3 thing as a web name but it is not that important.
There are times when a pen name is important, it does relate to self censorship and such.
I usually identify myself on IWR as being from Florida USA. And I have a favorite point to make about Iceland and Florida being similar in drifting into the financial and political mess we are all in.
The names and details are different but the results are the same or similar.
Here in Florida the era of public and pre activism was way back in the 1960s and 1970s. Since then Floridians have just shut their mouths and not gone to public hearings and meetings. Repercussions is part of this. A sense of apathy is also a factor in our self censorship.
I have more faith in Iceland to at least try, than I do about my home place.
The town I live in, Jacksonville, has over a million people in it. Participation in public life is barely measurable. The last local elections had only a 17% turnout at the polls. Before and after elections our participation is probably less than 1%. This is a severe form of self censorship is it not?
Our press did not even touch the finance and politics story before the (kreppa) mess here. And now our press is still asleep. It is amazing. I think it is unfortunate that going forward from now people do not have the foolish confidence to say their ideas and print them or video them or radio them or say it in person outside the kitchen.
I tend towards using a pseudonym or just my first name, depending on the forum. (What it says about my paranoia that I partition my identity on the web, I shall leave others to decide.)
The rational reason for relative anonymity is not that I don’t want my employer to know how much or how little I am online – any competently run NOC (network operations center) can do that, and you really have to make an effort to be anonymous at a machine and network level no matter where you are. The reason is that a condition of my employment was signing an agreement about giving them the ability to review and censor anything I write publicly to the extent that it can be linked to them. It seems that the unofficial accomodation is “don’t identify yourself and don’t abuse the network, and we’ll look the other way.” (Thus far, anyway, but I don’t post or comment much these days regardless.)
There are some weirdos out there so I think it’s good to have the option of anonymity. You never know who’s reading!
Unless you implement an authentication process similar to the procedures, banks use for their online-banking, I can’t really see the difference between using full names and pseudonyms. Using pseudonyms is in this sense more honest, because you know what you get, whereas anybody could make up some “real” name and pretend it to be his/her own.
I am generally very reluctant to provide personal information on the internet as pieces of information linked together with other available sources can be misused, commercially exploited, your (virtual) identity might be tampered with or stolen etc. May sound paranoic
but data privacy is under enormous pressure and we have a extensive debate in Germany about companies, which misuse private data of their customers and employees. And the internet never forgets.
I think, it would generally be the best approach, to refrain from derogatory and abusive comments at all.
Apart from this – as I am currently reading your blog from Tierra del Fuego, Argentina – it’s just too tempting to send some greetings up north to your “Tierra del Hielo”. The weather at this part of the world is a variation of the Icelandic themes – windy and volatile. And there is a longstanding relation with bankrupt banks and all the other kreppa stuff (“la crisis”). There is even a pots and pans drumming revolution (“cacerolazo”) in Argentina. So, remarkable similarities at both ends of the world…
I would vote for requiring names. If somebody wants to say something let them stand up and say it, not hide. What kind of repercussions for most idiots would there be?
In medical testing they include placebos and do blind testing. Both are anonymisers. Both are necessary because people atempt to “be right” when thy think they should be. Hence, requiring names introduces censorship, or self-censorship, because it puts the person naming him or her self into the test arenam where they are going to want to be “right”, whether to not seem weird, or to avoid a knock at the door at midnight.
I advocate the chicken-house method for comment sorting: Let the chickens drop what they want to, shovel the fertiliser out to the garden and collect the eggs to carry away. There are many different reasons people use pseudonyms, as many good as bad, and flamers usually show themselves by their flames, while not all trolls are tolls, some being contradictory opinions, perhaps poorly expressed.
In the end, all that appears anywhere in the internet is only words and pictures. No one yet has found a way to throw a real rock electronically.
One of the problems with online identification, in my experience, is that you can’t usually change your moniker after signing up on a site. A similar structural prob is that some sites allow fewer characters in a name than others. If I could, I’d standardize all my personae to the one I now use on my main blog (my real name), but it simply isn’t possible; thus, in some places I’m Erin Harris or Erin (short for Katherine) and in others, GlitzQueen (the name of my antique jools biz). A few more date from participation in some role-playing venues of the ’90s (such as AncientSites, where one took names from historic cultures).
I like what you’ve got here, Alda, because it allows plenty of room for us to identify outselves as we wish. Most of us who blog probably share the impulse toward transparency, even more intensely if we do real-world writing, too, and thus are used to nailing our colors to the wall, as it were.
That some who make comments prefer do so anonymously is understandable, if the material exposes abuses by an employer , colleague or client. Too, a lot of people now like to play it safe in general, knowing that their bosses and potential bosses have taken to snooping around the web. In the most extreme cases, there are folks with reason to fear their governments, as well.
I give people a lot of latitude in their comments to what I write, but the leeway isn’t endless. Without missing a beat, I’m glad to expunge any remarks that are just plain hateful to others engaged in the dialogue. There are plenty of places where the malicious can post their rants, but not where I have any say on the proceedings.
Comments on this entry are closed.