Identity, Credibility and Anyonmyity

Xpost from a long G+ discussion. about the matter, illustrated with examples you might care to avoid.

DeNovo Broome - You know, I just realized something. I've been online since the net was flat and starhubs roamed the land. I remember bangpathing my way to anon.penet.fi. And it just occurred to me that we have all been reminded of what Internet credibility is founded upon.

You see, back in the day, well, at least once it was in fact the Internet, it became quickly apparent that it was almost entirely impossible to be sure that anyone was who they said they were.

This happens to be a very old argument, and I don't actually think I've ever seen it resolved. I do remember that for the most part, those who raised it tended to have either @AOL or @Webtv addresses.

But it boils down to "How do I know you are speaking credibly to the topic at hand? How can I take your word for it?" Some people are persuaded more by credentials than by argument and that is often because they haven't the faintest idea how to argue, follow an argument or evaluate a document for content. They lack critical thinking skills, or are perhaps locked within some dogmatic paradigm that makes it quite literally impossible for them to hear, much less respect, persons with different viewpoints.

Well, on the early internet, that amounted to an social handicap on the order of not bathing for weeks at a time. Such people would attempt an argument from authority, typically, asserting credentials that, if they were actually genuine, spoke mostly to the Sad State Of Our World. But the thing about the internet was while such annoyances are must be dealt with cautiously in real life, as they may know where you live, or have some say into your economic reality, On the Net, you did not have to put up with them. There was no downside to telling them what you thought. And out of this the art of the flame was born. Illustrated above is an example of troll-spanking for the amusement of an audience; it becomes truly inspiring when the opponents are well-matched.

However it is also one of the great arts of Parliamentary Democracy, (CF "Question Period"). But then, it's not actually unheard of for violence to break out on the floors of Parliament - to the extent that there's often legislative immunity for acts short of outright murder.

But here's the thing; there's a great equality to it, if you choose to speak on the internet, argumentatively or simply with assurance. You walk into the ring bringing nothing. No status. No gender. No racial privilege or deficit. You could be wearing an Armani suit or a janitor's coveralls. You age was invisible, unless you choose to make it clear. Your physical being mattered not a whit - or at least, it did not get to speak before you did. And that was a powerful thing to many people. I contend it still is, and ought to be so.

With no way to "prove" that you deserved to be respected, you had to go out there and be literate, knowledgeable and coherent. You needed to be respectable to gain respect, you needed to be usefully authoritative to be considered an Authority. And many were the academic egoists and authoritarians who walked into the fray expecting a mere assertion of privilege would carry the day.

And this is how the internet was built - and why Google should know better than to try and reshape it. Facebook is for people who wish to communicate through a medium. I (and I think most making arguments similar to mine) wish to participate in a culture within a medium.

This culture - and it is a culture - is not welcoming to people who feel naked without their claques and cliques and credentials. Goodness, that came out snottily. Well, let it stand; it's true, if put rudely. But in fact, it's a different culture than the one that predominates in meat-life; one that may well be better suited for meat-life, but this is not meat-life. This is an reality made up of photons and flat screens, the combination of texts and images. And even when the web goes into an immersive 3D, with streaming realtime voice - all of that - every single byte - must be taken with great skepticism for it's literal truth.

Those images will be no deeper than these words. We may not trust them as real, but we may test them for value, for truth; for emotional reality. And we will, of course, have to examine what makes things real, and how that differs from being photographically accurate.

But here, it's just words. That's all you have. Unless you are willing to hire someone to be your virtual spokesperson.

But this goes back to pseudonyms, handles, anonymity, "accountability," and the whole idea that you can't know that something said on the internet is reliable if you can't find a personal address.

That's utter nonsense, the sort of nonsense that makes me wonder if the real desire is to be able to rebut an argument with a thoughtful beating.

Can you argue your point? Do you have facts at hand? Do you understand those facts? Can you explain what they mean in a useful way that's testable in the real world? Do you know the likely counterarguments to your position? If both of us can do all this (and you should be able to, they are really rather basic requirements for communicating intelligently) then it really matters little if you know me as DeNovo Broome or Biggus Dickus.

A decent regard for the rules of grammar, spelling, composition and audience are appropriate, and as basic as ensuring that your shoes fit the rest of your outfit - for almost entirely the same reasons.

In both cases, the language and the attire both clothe a persona that is suited to the context. And I do live to point out that we are not, any of us, platform-independent.


As a side note, the essence of this article and the issues as to why people such as myself prefer to be pseudonymous - indeed, as anonymous as is reasonably possible - is highlighted in a post  about my own, very recent brush with the sort of people who think I don't "deserve" my "creepy" secrets.