wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

I was just looking at Mr Lehrer's "blog" - which appears to be just a photo gallery with occasional lists of un-commented "required reading" - in hopes of finding some contribution from him that might give listeners an idea of the thinking that goes into some of the choices he makes in interviews, but, nada. "Blog" just seems now to be a standard feature of web sites like this, even when the "bloggers" have no apparent interest in actually using them for anything interesting.
Pity.

Interesting topic today...bit of a one sider though, being that Andrew relies upon arcane self-centered opinions of quality control, which is synonymous with the very totalitarianism that he said he didn't care for in China and Iran.

So, in conclusion, Andrew, if you don't like a website for one reason or another, because it says bad words, or that picture of a kitten with a soldier's helmet on is innacurate and you'd like to make the person responsible pay for such an inaccurate representation, then go join the Amish in Pennsylvania and live the haughty, sheltered existence you seem to dream of.
Sincerely,
Max Rodriguez
P.s. - that is my real name, and I'm sorry I didn't get to say this to you on the air today.

This segment served one useful purpose, which was to remind people that they shouldn't believe things until they have done adequate research into the topic. It is unfortunate that people often don't have the time to fact find themselves. But silencing any point of view anonymous or not is wrong and always will be.

Today's media is far too closely aligned with the powers that they traditionally served to keep in check. Unregulated internet restores the true value of having a free media by providing an unfiltered voice of dissent.

I called into the show earlier... I am a Blogger, and I used to Post anonymously. However, I realized there was little point to shield my identity, since I don't make it a habit of writing inflammatory, vitriolic or derogatory posts.

However, I have had a good deal of experience with commenters on my Blog who refuse to name themselves while harshly issuing criticism.

See Here: http://nonpartypolitics.blogspot.com/2007/04/flat-out-lying-about-iraq.html

Here: http://nonpartypolitics.blogspot.com/2007/04/stop-genocide-in-rwanda-and-sudan-but.html

And here: http://nonpartypolitics.blogspot.com/2007/06/life-on-planet-kos.html

I don't take issue with a Blogger or commenter writing anonymously, per se, however, if one is going to be brave enough to make bold and controversial statements, you lend more credence to your argument when you back it up with you name.

Look at the incident at the Huffington Post, whereby numerous posters bemoaned the missed direct hit on our Vice President in Afghanistan, or similarly when Cheney underwent a medical procedure for his heart. Americans were calling for his death... Anonymously.

Child Porn (and RIAA/downloads) as a problem on the internet.

Yes, TOR might protect a child-pornographer.

However, I think that there is MORE prosecution of child-pornographers then would NORMALLY occur, because of "Entrapment" Schemes.

Do I support entrapment of child pornographers? absolutely.

Do I support the concept that RIAA wants to help Empower the FBI to ARREST and criminalize
"Peer to Peer" networking?

NO way.

it's a fine line between our current civil rights, and the police/1984 state we are about to head into...

Remember.... make sure to be heard before you are carted off for free speech...

And yes, NOBODY on the internet (even with TOR)
is totally anonymous... It just makes it MUCH easier that way

I am laughing at the immense credibility Mr. Keen puts on non-anonymity. Just look at some of the people on TV or radio whose names we know and who deliver absolutely unsubstantiated garbage without blinking an eye. On the other hand, when I write my semi-anonymous posts or comments on the internet I do so with absolute integrity and the most care I can possibly give it.

I certainly agree that there's a lot of bogus info posted on the internet and there's also a lot of planted stuff, but the internet is anonymous by nature. To try to make it what it isn't and squeeze it into some yesteryear concept that replicates what was before just isn't going to happen, Mr. Keen.

It is not his business if someone decides to write anonymously
This guy, andrew keen wants to destroy anonymity plainly ...
Because rules about civility can be established on an internet site, isn't that what a moderator can do ?? even wnyc reserves the right to use guidelines
How many wonderful books and opinions have been written under "anonymous" ;
And even benjamin franklin wrote under a pseudonym

On the Internet, vetted information is expensive.

Andrew Keen says that the internet is a "trashy medium" but I've never found it to be "trashier" than any other form of communication or advertizing. Of course there are revolting aspects, but does that mean that television is less "trashy?" Or print newspapers and magazines. Fox news, certain cable shows, US magazine, the cover of the The Daily News... these all seem to me wildly tasteless media none of which is annonymous. Everyone knows the CEOs and can find the names of contributors and editors. I disagree entirely that posting your name connotes "responsibility" in content.

I really am having a problem with Keen's almost slavish devotion to "credentials" and "signed articles" increasing his trust in the information. As several have noted in these comments, many news outlets gave the American public very, very, very bad information--and continue to do so.

Why won't you ask Keen about this?

Revealing my identity only improves your chances for ad hominem attacks...not the quality of what I have to say.

I support methods of anonymity like freenet and the Tor network. I believe protecting freedom of speech is more important than the rudeness and flaming that seems to be a side effect. However, I am concerned that anonymous networks like Tor could enable criminal activity, for example child pornography.

Why should anonymity matter to an individual's credibilty when it comes to a statement that claims to be true? If a perosn makes a statement that claims to be true, if their statement is open to scrutiny, and the general public is able to check the person's facts - then the credibitly and reliabilty of that person and thier information and is determinted at that moment. If a person makes a statement that they expect others to accept on faith and personal credibility, then in this case anonymity matters -- and disclosure of identitiy is key to reliability and credibility.......

Also as a different and comparable tool to free-net is TOR

"Tor is a toolset for a wide range of organizations and people that want to improve their safety and security on the Internet."

torr.eff.org

(Electronic Freedom Foundation)

Mark Brown in NJ

Perhaps worse than being deemed a Communist, is Mr. Keen here not advocating for a widespread repression of one's inner feelings—even if (or especially if) those thoughts are harsh or vulgar? Anonymity on the internet allows people to show how they truly feel, without accountability—akin to Borat passively bringing out the worst in people, showing light on what our society is really like.

Blog/Internet users and NPR listeners had the highest factual understanding of the actual events involved the runup to the Iraq Invasion. Newspaper readers were a bit lower, and TV news in general very low.

There's a link somewhere for this, but I don't have time to look right now.

I have a professional reason to be anonymous: I am a social studies teacher. Also, I am aspiring to work in a more attractive school. Given that I am a public servant and that I am teaching on government and history, it is risky for me to openly blog or contribute to wikipedia. And honestly, I do contribute heavily to wikipedia, often on very partisan-charged matters.

Ironically, I have found that the non-psuedonymous citizenpedia (spelling?) is actually fraught with quite egregiuos partisan bias. Something about the steady criticizing and revising in wikipedia creates more neutral articles. (Compare wikipedia's bio of President Reagan with the laudatory one in citizenpedia, written by a retired professor.)

Andrew confuses criticism with rudeness. He needs to give a clear example of harm. The whole foods example is lame exactly because of anonymity.

dear brian, as you might guess from my use of a pseudonym in this email i value the chance to be able to separate my comments and opinions from the rest of my activities. when i contribute to the station i do so under my name and at an email box bearing that name. in offering comments in feel freer to do stepped back from my credit card self. i would email my legislators and other public officials offering my more candid opinions on their actions more readily if i could so anonymously. i fear they may not make their offices available for official business to a person who criticises their political actions. for example, i would love to tell senator clinton that i will not vote for her for president because she was bamboozled by rove/bush/cheney into voting for the iraq invasion. i believe this to have bee4n a politically fatal error on her part, but i never know when i might need to petition my senator to act on my behalf and don't wish to alienate her. so i don't send senator clinton my critique of her iraq record since i can't do so anonymously.

as for hiding behind anonymity to use use loutish language, well one's behavior speaks for itself.

sincerely, punsintended

I'm not really sure what Keen's point is exactly when he speaks about blog comments. Even if I print my whole name here....he STILL won't know who I am. It'll just be a name to him. So what's the point?

He has some points but he just gets into extremes in my opinion which undercuts his whole arguement as being silly, quite frankly. The whole comment about SecondLife just seems like shrill hysteria to me.

I wish Brian had googled Freenet a little; then he might have thought to inform listeners who might be rushing to download Freenet that the software has its own serious ethical issues - to my understanding, it requires users to host and recirculate information from any and all Freenet users regardless of content, without having any knowledge of or choice in that content. It's wonderful to provide tools for Chinese dissidents - but how does one know one isn't providing hosting for arms dealers and child pornographers instead? And surely such a system can be used just as well to provide a zero-accountability data system for oppressive governments as it can for freedom fighters.

You may sign yourself with a pseudonym -- to protect your identity. But anyone who posts has to give their email address -- and the email address is traceable. So anyone posting can be found. Also, it's not in the interest of a blog to have a comments sections that gets out of control. More resonable people will stop participating. There are hosts to who can block the truly incenidiary poster. And various comments sections are beginning to police themselves.

I think Andrew Keen is disengenuous. Of the two, he's the only one who has actually posted anonymously.

the chef who praised himself & trashed his competition was only pathetic. what did he really gain? imagine george bush anonymously writing to blogs praising himself. why bother?

"Annonymity" is a creative fact of internet life.
It is a world of clever name "handles", avatars, and pseudonyms. I don't feel that there is any more accountability if I use one of my "handles" like "bingo" or "felix". This issue is a slippery slope towards police-like registration.

Improving civility in our society is a separate issue.

Besides the "accountability" of newsrooms like CNN or Fox is no more dependable in the end.

re: the reference to the Federalist Papers

Fear of King George had nothing to do with the anonymity of the authors -- the war was years over. Instead, the conflicts were among Americans themselves, in deciding whether to ratify the Constitution.

As for why it was anonymous, 'Publius' was responding to critics of the proposed Constitution who wrote under Roman pseudonyms (e.g. 'Brutus'). 'Publius' also gave a single voice to papers written by three authors.

In any case, it is difficult to argue that the Madison, Jay, and Hamilton wrote anonymously out of fear: they were well-known proponents of the Constitution.

Oh, and a question: Do men and women differ in their preferences for anonymity---whether in writing anonymously or in dealing with anonymous criticism and threats?

Thanks.

Yes, Brian.

I got so disgusted seeing posts with my name from over 15 years ago on the internet (net-news)
that I gave up using my REAL name

Therefore I have decided to be similar to Mark Twain, and use the SAME name for everything.

I only wish my publications, and poetry was as popular as his writing

markbnj

PS: at the Automatic-poetry-machine.blogspot.com
I will write a poem customized for you!

I'd have to agree with 100% with one of the above comments; if Keen really believes that just because an article has a signed name to it means that it's factual or has even had proper journalism/research done to complete it then he has really been living in a bubble for the past 6 years or so.

why should have no need to give our name on the net unless we know everyone reading our posts and we have to right to refuse certain people from reading what we've written. we have a right to protect ourselves.

Also, in health information groups, perhaps individuals do not want the world to know what matters they need to ask questions about. Again, employment checks could be a factor. Or, for example, simply not wanting the world at large to know your parent has Alzheimer's.

You have to differentiate between pseudonymity and anonymity. The use of a stable pseudonym is a middle ground between total anonymity and open identity. User on Wikipedia, for instance, often have elaborate personal pages that exclaim their interests, and the record of their edits is also a kind of personal identifier.

Even the 'Neil' I'm identifying myself with is a pseudonym, even though my first name is (truly) Neil.

In a society that often smirks at change (eg Kerry the flip flopper) anonymity often allows people the option to work towards a position that they might not have been able to. Sometimes our identities come with expectations. If you already know who I am, you think you know what I'm supposed to think and do and say.

The challenge with many newspaper blogs for example is that moderate voices get shouted down and a handful of extreme commenters hijack the threads. Eventually, every topic devolves into a shouting match between well-established "characters" and the original thought gets lost in the melee.

Another challenge is that commercial sites are driven by clicks, so that sites ask trivial questions in click polls and allow their discussion boards to be hijacked by loudmouths.

I wonder, how civil are Canadian and European sites?

Also, long live snark!

I think the guest vastly overestimates the readership of blogs and blog comments. True, anyone can start a blog, but how can everybody be reading each one?

I think if he looks carefully, he'll see that sites which carry the old-fashioned authority of an established publication or news venue (such as WNYC or NPR), or that have stood some test of time (Slate) will draw more than enough eyeballs to balance out his concern.

And this in turn concerns people who want a kind of wild, grass-roots web to flourish. So around it goes.

As proven by the NYTimes' reporting in the runup to the Iraq Invasion, I think we can safely say that not all signed articles are entirely factual.

In the Plame investigation, Tim Russert made many reports about the situation but never mentioned his role in it.

In many signed op-ed pieces, some writers are still saying Plame was not covert, among other factually incorrect statements.

I was a taken aback by Andrew Keen's flippant remarks about how getting fired from ones job would be a good thing because of "the bad publicity it would generate for the company".

A vast majority of people don't have the luxury of going without a job regardless of how much bad publicity it may do to the company, or whether they would eventually prevail in a court battle.

If you're blowing the whistle, and disclose verifiable facts, those facts ought to stand on their own regardless of whether or not your name is attached to them.

US History Alert

The Federalist Papers were written between October 1787 and April 1788. So, whatever the reason the "founders" were using pen names, it was not fear of the British monarch. It was long after the US defeated the British and the Treaty of Paris was signed (Sept. 1783)

Also, I post anonymously because I do not want to get nasties either verbally or in person showing up.

You guest Ian Clake made a serious mistake by stating that the Feralist Papers were a precursor to the US Constitution. On the contrary, the Federalist papers were instituted to sell the US Constitution.

Oh, dear--I mean Andrew Keen.

Does you British guest work in the US? Does he understand that losing one's job here results in losing health care insurance? There's no safety net for health care here.

But, aside from that, people have been turned down for jobs because of political postings in this country. Now, he may think that's only fair, that an employer should be able to pick employees who reflect his or her politics--I do not.