Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
...But, as I said in my earlier post, these polls are not really any different to writing your recommendation in a post. Do you object to doing that? If not, why is a vote different to a post to the same effect? What purpose is served by making it less convenient for those interested in identifying who liked which books?...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet53
...I also don't really understand what the concern of those who would refuse to have there online handle here associated with such a vote is. I wonder if those who are so reluctant to have there votes public ever buy books online, say from Amazon?...
|
The following is not specifically aimed at you gmw and Hamlet53, but what you have said, which is a view held by others, provides a point to launch from for a general response from my point of view.
What is being done, in my view, is some are assuming that they understand the needs of others with respect to their privacy better than those others do themselves. And they do so without apparently realizing that by quizzing those who consider they have privacy needs, they are seeking further information that may very well be private, or compromise privacy too. So the privacy seeker either does not respond (and so may be rashly assumed to have no reasons at all) or else gives some response that does not reveal the actual truth.
I mentioned earlier I could relate the experience of another large international forum where abuse external to the forum itself occurred. When that occurred and the subject of anonymity was discussed there was the same reaction by some, as here, in that they considered they had the right to know what others were doing/thought (and even who they were, there were many claiming that there should be no anonymity) and that at least the forum should be oriented towards that; if that restricted the ability of those who sought anonymity to take part in some aspects of normal forum activities, well that was just too bad.
There were even some who went so far as to claim that posters should be required to identify themselves to all, if not by name then at least by IP address (which, of course, may not be static). There were many who thought that those who sought anonymity could have no rational reason for doing so and so were likely to be unsavory in some way e.g. posting with multiple identities. Many thought that members should be required to provide detailed profiles of themselves; location, employment type, club memberships, etc.
First, how easy is it to identify a regular poster even if they have taken care to protect their identity? A member of the forum who himself kept a very public profile but respected the rights of others to not do so (he was also well known to the forum owners), challenged posters in his own country that he could prove that he could identify many of them and did so with volunteer quinea pigs who thought that they were anonymous. Of course he did not publically name them but PM'ed them. He had a very high hit rate getting to actual names, or else getting so close that it was clear that a little extra work other than from behind his keyboard, would clinch it (I know some of the methods he used and can elaborate a little if asked).
Second, why should anyone want to protect their identity. Two reasons came to light; those who were abused outside of the forum (e.g. in writing, anonymously of course
, or in at least one case vandalism), and some who had their businesses abused. For the first case, the victims were generally people who were either very knowledgeable about the forum's interest subject, or who stated strong (often well informed) views in "lounge" type threads.
For one of the business cases I knew the victim so he was able to tell me what had happened; he was a very active poster but produced quite innocuous posts, very pleasant natured person and having just a general knowledge of the forum's interest subject, so quite ordinary. He owned a restaurant and he suddenly started getting a stream of negative comments about its food and service on internet restaurant review sites. It turned out that these were coming from a couple of malicious forum members who had never even visited the restaurant (they were identified because, like many such types, they could not keep their mouths shut and someone was then able to snitch on them). I was able to see these reviews for myself (apparently they are pretty much impossible to get removed).
There was really nothing much that could be done about it all apart from some bans (one assumes to be resurrected under different user names
), people becoming far more aware of what can go wrong, and the criticism of those accused of "hiding behind anonymous user names" abated. Interestingly, in that forum there had always been a general expectation that forum polls would be confidential.
Note, I am not claiming that anything of the sort is happening here. However, I have seen it happen in an unexpected place. Nor am I claiming that the possibility of abuse is the only rational reason for some to wish to protect their privacy in some way, there are others (for me, just as if I was at a social function, even their just saying "I do not wish to say" is ample reason).
Out of that and other experiences, I accept without question if someone wants to protect their identity. Whether the reason in their own particular case is rational or not, or even anything to do with the forum itself (e.g. the poster may have had an unhappy experience after a public show of hands in a union, club, etc.) I do not consider it my business to question. What I do know is that there are many reasons and that is all that matters. To question people as to their reasons, as far as I am concerned, is just further invading their desired privacy on the matter.
Some can continue to claim that their right to know what other posters would rather keep private apart from perhaps letting trusted friends know (e.g. what their favorite book is from a particular decade) is the superior position. However, I take a different stance, nosiness of the type "I want to be able to see what specific other people have voted for, even if they rather I did not know" is never superior, and quizzing them on their reasons for privacy is abuse.