@Dave:
You lost me, but I wasn’t making much sense, so…. If I were to try to make sense I would probably write something like the following:
Of the many memes that comprise the internet phenomenon, quite a few have to do with freedom of expression, democratisation of the means of expression, fostering communities of interest, new forms of intelligent social decision making (e.g. hive mind, or wisdom of crowds), theories of autonomous social self-organization, and on and on and on… heady stuff!
And one cornerstone of these experiments is anonymity. Anonymity is widely considered essential to true freedom. Anonymity is presented as an antidote against potential government oppression and an universal cure for evil practices by big organizations (insert favorite baddies here).
Many experiments along these lines appear to have been wildly successful. Craigs List is widely thought to be free both as in beer and as in Liberty. Digg, SlashDot and others are held up to represent something superior because they aggregate the free actions of free individuals to achieve a quality superior to the old-fashioned [and un-free tyranny of an] editor. Blog comment threads vary but clearly provide information that was unlikely to found in one place in the old days of face to face meetings or edited media.
The problem is that groups (I would prefer to call them “gangs”), operating surreptitiously, game these systems. Craigs List asserts that it depends on its “community” for self-policing and the anonymity of the “community” is not to be compromised. Non-compliant posts are “flagged” and repeat offenders are sniffed out and permanently banned. This works. But to the extent that it empowers anonymous, self appointed groups (which I’d prefer to call “thugs”), it enhances neither Liberty nor a free market of anything, ideas or otherwise.
Consider that anti-”business” policies could make it easier for gangs of thieves to use Craigs List as a safe place to move merchandise at much higher rates and prices than traditional “fences” can. Prices that are glorious bargains compared to face to face markets’ prices. Prove it, right? Right.
Digg in particular has been tarred with accusations of anti-conservative editing by self-appointed groups working in cahoots with the management.
By jettisoning face to face contact and replacing it with anonymity, we subject our spheres of discourse to two problems, both pointed out previously by Wretchard. First, willful self-misrepresentation by manipulators (“trolls”, con artists, information warfare) and second, nagging fears of The Singularity and non-human control of media in a Post-Turing Test world.
Anonymity is problematic. It loosens restraints on civil behavior and enables criminal behavior. “Checks and balances” are no longer concrete. How is it that Anonymity is a Sacred Cow to libertarians (such as myself, sorry, my bad to have used the capital “L” previously)? Anonymity has become a shibboleth appropriated by small-”L” liberals and “Progressives” alike.
People cynically say that anonymity is a myth in the Internet Age, so how do we explain anonymity being so popular as a fundamental freedom? Mechanisms such as required registration do go a long way to tempering abuses, but, for example, Craigs List refuses to require even anonymized registration for their “flag-happy” community.
Do anonymous cyber thugs operate surreptitiously in ostensibly free online environments or is that crackpot paranoia? What is the consequence of anonymity in social relationships? I’d suggest that if libertarians and liberals continue to treat anonymity as sacred, we promote loss of Liberty, not extension.
Does that make sense?
