Anonymous Comments

I happened to catch a blurb on the news this morning regarding the decision that the Huffington Post (a well-known news aggregator site) will soon be disallowing anonymous comments on its site. I saw this and an attempt to justify this decision as a push to create a more civilized discourse from another point of view since this is nothing new to China-watchers. After all, authorities in China have pushed for similar legislation for all China-based sites in an attempt to crack down on rampant online dissent. And I was not at all surprised to subsequently find that Chinese media have picked up on this piece of news. While this piece by Xinhua (the China Daily) did not actively take sides (at least in English, my Chinese is not good enough to read that version and it would not be surprising to read there was a different version in Chinese), it should not be at all surprising to note that the article only referenced the "positive" benefits of registering all users who wish to leave comments.

The underlying message being promoted by the Huffington Post (HP) is that this will promote a more civilized conversation and less trolling with the oft-accompanying threats and other negative commentary that can derail conversations on the internet. And, on its surface, this is a well-known problem not just on the HP but almost anywhere on the net where people are allowed to post whatever they want with the belief that they are relatively anonymous. (It is also worth noting here that I have suggested previously here and here that the idea of true anonymity on the internet is a false one but that is an argument for another day.) It is a real problem but is stripping away that anonymity the right answer? And, if so, why is it the right answer for a US-based site but not in China? Should this perceived anonymity only be available in countries or sites that are run by totalitarian governments? Do we believe that civility is something that can only be achieved by unmasking those who only say things when they feel they won't be held accountable otherwise? And do we really believe that the US government is truly benevolent in comparison to other countries (I suspect there are more than a few people who would find that idea preposterous in light of recent revelations over the scope of spying on US citizens communications by the National Security Agency) in how it governs?

This is not to suggest that the HP is right or wrong in taking this move. Clearly they feel they are taking this move to make their site better for a majority of their users. But there are always two sides to every argument and it would be wise to see what the potential consequences of such a far-reaching decision may have to chill conversation that may otherwise not be possible if the ability to remain relatively anonymous are stripped away.

Some more random thoughts...

China's firewall goes international. Ignoring the technical side for a moment, the possibility that people outside of China are having their requests routed through China - and its firewall - poses a conundrum. One of the major selling points is the absolute freedom of information available on the internet. And while there is a growing possibility of mini-nets that will be regional, or even country-specific, and thus liable to suffer from whatever forms of control asserted by the local authorities, the possibility that an error such as that described in the linked article could occur can have consequences far beyond the given area. Indeed, it is the opposite of the problem that many authoritarian countries face now whereby they worry about information getting to their citizens. But the ability to export their controls external to their regional area is far more frightening for everyone. It simply goes to show that there is balance everywhere. It is easy to see the "good" side of the internet and its information flow and ignore the "bad" side where impediments to that same free flow can be far too easily exported. Hopefully a good answer will be found in the near future - though the fact that this has occurred previously does not bode well.

The nanny state is at it again. In a plan that seems more reminiscent of something from the designers of The Patriot Act (or maybe the creators of The Matrix or even V for Vendetta), it would appear that the UK government is asking internet cafes to voluntarily monitor the usage of its customers. The stated purpose, of course, is to help prevent terrorism. The problem is that this becomes a rather slippery slope. Once we know that you're helping us to check up on your fellow citizens, then let's see what else we can do to continue to establish the sense of paranoia and fear that allows us to exert other forms of control over a citizenry too cowed to tell us no. Is it scare-mongering to warn us to be on the lookout for those who would potentially harm us? Is it just responsible government? Is it another step on the way to a more dangerous form of authoritarian government with fewer controls on its exercise of power? To know the answer would be to know the intent of those who wield this power. And the reality is that it is impossible to know the intent of anyone regardless of their actions. If history has not yet demonstrated the ability for government to relinquish its hold on power, then it would seem that we are fated to learn the lesson - again.

And, just so no one thinks it's just a Western thing, moderates in Islam continue to suffer losses. And for some perspective, bear in mind that Qatar also hosts CENTCOM Forward HQ (US military central command). It also is the home of Al-Jazeera, the most widely viewed news source in the Middle East and the source, according to some, of the inflammatory rhetoric used against the West (and has regularly been the primary source for Al-Qaeda communications). But now, to help reshape it as a more religiously conservative site, the government has forced out the moderate leadership (moderate, of course, being a relative term), including Al-Qaradawi, of the company that funds the site. What is the old mantra? Money talks, BS walks? Yes, that is it. And here it is clear that if the moderate message put through by the site could not be erased by an equally rational message from those who disagreed with it, it is easier to simply wipe the site out (or at least dilute it) by taking away its funding. Then the government can step in and force its own message onto the site. Come to think of it, I'll bet Hugo Chavez could learn a lesson from Qatar...