Quote:
Originally Posted by januaryman
It's the same engenderment of mob mentality that anonymity allows, especially as evinced by those anonymous authors who secret their identities on the pretext that revealing their "secret identity" would endanger their safety.
|
The problem is, revealing your identity
can endanger your safety. Let's say that one person in a million is a headcase who will try to harm someone they disagree with. If I say something provocative in public -- at an elected official's "town hall" appearance, let's say -- the odds that one of the few dozen people in attendance is that person are extremely low. But, on the other hand, if I say it online, where tens of millions of people can read it -- especially if it's pointed out, as this author's rant was, to people who will respond strongly -- the chances of one of those many readers being a dangerous nut are considerably higher. I've never been threatened over the things I say offline, and they're no different, save being shorter and less well thought out, than what I say online. I
have been threatened, many times, for saying those same things online. I seem to find the nuts. And so that the nuts don't find
me, I keep my identity as "Worldwalker" separate from information which could be used to easily locate me (it's far from impossible, but too much effort for your average nut, which reduces the problem considerably). It only takes one deranged person to present a problem, and if one is in the habit of saying provocative things, the larger the audience, the greater the chance of encountering such a person.
Genuinely famous people tend to attract stalkers for much the same reason: wide exposure. Percentage-wise, Joe Schmoe might be just as likely to attract a stalker as David Letterman (though actually, fame seems to play into it as well) but how many people see Joe Schmoe on a regular basis? But on the Internet, we're all potential David Lettermans -- look at Jacqueline Howett, who went in a moment from unknown hack writer to known by (and laughed at by) millions.
So, the possibility of that one unhinged person turning up (especially turning up at your front door) can be sufficient to make anonymity look like a very good thing.
In the case of writing, there's the review issue. "Revenge reviews" are all too common. It is clear from the 5-star Amazon reviews that Ms. Howett reposted to that blog that she has family and friends who will (either through honest belief, or simply through needing to get along with someone who clearly has serious issues) will post anything she dictates. Is it all that unlikely that someone who would scream obscenities at reviewers and blog commenters would also plaster those people's writing, should it be for sale anywhere, with negative reviews? And, unfortunately, it is the people who are most disturbed who are most likely to retaliate in that way. A lot of people frankly just don't want to expose their professional work to assault by deranged amateurs.
Also, there's the preconceptions aspect. What image do you have of me, Worldwalker? I'll bet a lot that it doesn't look much like me. That's a sucker bet, because there are an enormous number of possible images, and only one of that number would be right; house odds are overwhelmingly in my favor. Not having any preconceptions about what I
should be like based on some data about me other than my posts, you have to read and respond to my words. You can't just say "well, WW is such-and-such, and all such-and-such think that" because you don't know, really, who I am. I'm just text on your screen, and it's that text, not some label you stick on my physical form, that is all anyone has to respond to.