On Anonymous Comments

There's an interesting little debate held at the Guardian on anonymous comments on the internet, and the desirability of having them. The pro-side argues that it's the only way to get a free and open exchange of ideas going, the con-side argues that anonymity brings out the worst in people (rudeness, personal attacks etc). I have a few thoughts on this.

First of all, let there be no mistake: this is a purely normative debate, and has no bearing on the real world whatsoever. We have come way too far down the road of anonymity; can you imagine all those newspapers, blogs, message boards, and random websites requiring real names to post comments? I can't. That doesn't mean it's not a debate worth having, but we should be aware of the stakes, which are purely academic.

Second, there's anonymous and then there's anonymous. Anonymous is when you come up with a nickname or clever pseudonym to post comments. Anonymous is when you write comments as "Anonymous". The former is not a problem at all, and is the norm on basically 99% of well-trafficked websites out there. The latter is uber-annoying because one can't tell people apart. Unfortunately, if you want to ban anonymous comments in blogger, you're forced to use a Google ID, which not everyone has, which is why our blog still allows anonymous comments.

Third, I know the "anonymity brings out the worst in us" argument is one made very commonly; I've made it myself a million times (especially when doing my favorite thing, which is perusing comments on Youtube videos of India-Pakistan cricket matches). But it's worth considering this aspect: human beings are, at root, social animals. By that I mean that basically all of our "natural" instincts are conditioned by the social environments within which we are embedded.

For example, as living animals, we have a need to eat food, but the way we eat food is socially or culturally given. In some parts of the world, it's normal to eat food sitting on the floor, in others you must eat on a table. In some parts of the world, you use a knife and fork, in others your hands, and in others still, chopsticks.

In turn, such social and cultural considerations are mediated by our own personal experiences, narrowing further still the applicability of broad-brush "natural" characterizations. So our "natural" instinct is to want to have sex. Social considerations dictate, in part, what we consider attractive traits in a potential mate, so fair skin might be privileged in certain places and long fingernails in others. And then personal considerations winnow that further, so someone who wears a green shirt the first time is more attractive than someone who wears red, or whatever.

All this is a roundabout way of saying: rabid and disgusting and offensive anonymous comments seem to shine a light on what our "natural" state is -- that is, being rabid and disgusting and offensive. But there's another way of looking at it, and that is to focus on the fact that human beings have constructed society that is advanced to the extent that such outbursts are shunned. When people look at the disjuncture between our behavior in front of other people and our behavior when we are hidden, they shake their heads at what we are, deep down. But surely we can also applaud our societies for rendering such conduct exclusively to the private and anonymous domain (for the most part)?