The Ethics of ‘Outing’ an Anonymous Commenter

There is a battle raging on one of my favorite blogs, PSFK, about a new campaign for Levi's from Wieden + Kennedy [that's an advertising agency for those of you who don't live in the echo chamber].  If you're interested, check out the post and comments here.

But this post isn't about the campaign, but rather something I noticed in the comment thread.  Someone, identifying herself only as "megan," left an anonymous comment for Piers Fawkes [who wrote the post] saying "your negative rants on wk are getting boring."

I happen to believe that anonymous commenting is pretty cowardly.  But I'm neither naive nor dogmatic about it - I realize that for a variety of reasons people sometimes feel they need to hide their identity, or just aren't comfortable identifying themselves.  But still, I'm not a big fan.  Apparently Piers has a zero tolerance policy, judging by his 'outing' of Megan as a W+K employee

So the question I pose [and I invite Piers to respond, and I hope he appreciates the spirit in which this post is drafted] is, what are the ethical standards for a blogger 'outing' an anonymous commenter? 

Do we owe our readers a disclaimer that their identity may be revealed, despite their desire for anonymity?

As masters of our own domain (pun intended) do we have a right to do anything we want with the back-end analytics at our fingertips?

What's the upside of 'outing' commenters?  Does it level the playing field?  Force people to own up to their words?

Please leave your comments - I hope the subject-matter here compels you to leave your name.

Comments

[anonymous]

anonymous comments suck.

[Clay Parker Jones]

I dunno. Anonymity is an important part of journalism; consider if Deep Throat wasn't able to assist in the development of the stories about Watergate. And where do we all stand on the outing of Valerie Plame?

The outing of anonymous commenters is certainly a slippery slope, especially if a policy isn't made clear somewhere on the blog. I looked on PSFK (which I visit daily) and couldn't find anything about commenting policy. My thinking is that if you're going to take actions against anonymous folks, you ought to make clear what you're going to do and how you're going to do it.

But that's just me.

Oh! I nearly forgot.

Let's also not forget that Anonymous is a powerful force on the internet, and an important part of the memes that we cherish.

[Josh Copeland]

Trying to find constructive examples of anonymity, I only find those who expose true crimes (Watergate, big tobacco, the mob). In those cases anonymity is initially needed because in most cases the exposer's life is truly at risk. Some secrets are so dangerous that they are truly deadly.

But this is advertising. It's not deadly, it's not sacred, it's not (in most cases) critical to society at-large. Advertising is meant to be informative, entertaining, insightful and impactful. That's it.

With most communications, I despise anonymity. Its nature rids the teller of the responsibility of truth. And usually the commentary that the anonymous have to say is petty at best. In the case of PSFK, when the shroud of anonymity was lost the truth was obvious. Who else would be so concerned about Mr Fawkes' POV than the target of his rant? Was it ethical for Piers to out the commenter? Absolutely. Not only did it prove his point further, but it hopefully reminded more of his readers to be conscious of what they say.

Recently I contributed an article to the blog Please Feed The Animals, and originally I had wanted my posting to be anonymous. I had believed that posting a potentially negative article about the job search process might hurt my chances. But PFTA's founder Erik Proulx asked me to reconsider and write something that I could stand behind. It forced me to write something objective, something constructive and ultimately I was really happy with the end result.

When we have to be accountable for what we say, it may be risky and we may fight criticism but I think we're more thoughtful & considerate.

[Nick S.]

I always leave my name when I comment, but I understand why some people would not want to. I like to encourage feedback, so I allow anonymous comments on my blog. I would never "out" an anonymous comment, though, because I allowed the comment to be left anonymously and I respect the commentator's ability to leave an anonymous comment.

If you're willing to "out" an anonymous commenter, I think you should just turn off the ability to comment anonymously. Then you don't have to out anybody.

[Teresa Basich]

Let's see how we do this time. ;-)

Although I personally wouldn't have handled the above situation the same way Piers did, I'm not sure he was wrong in outing his commenter.

From what I've experienced in the blogosphere, anonymity more often leads to rude and unsupported commentary than it does to useful, contributory commentary. People tend to use the anonymous platform to make unfounded claims or display anger, not to actually add to the conversation.

On the other hand, I think bloggers have a fair amount of censorship capabilities and Piers could have easily moderated Megan's comment, keeping it from ever being posted to his blog. Since he was able to identify her so easily, he probably could've contacted her privately to discuss her attitude. Was he trying to stop her in her tracks through public shaming?

Blog etiquette can be tricky, but I think blogging has been around long enough that those who participate as creators and commenters should be well aware that there are potential consequences to everything they say. A blogger's domain is theirs to do what they will, whether we agree or not. If Piers feels he did the right thing, I can't fault him for his interpretation of blog protection.

[scary]

CRIMES AGAINST POSTERITY
SWINE FLU SWINDLE
SWINES FLEW IN TOP HATS
Glaxo is just a marketing hand
so who sold that vacc to the whole world carrying seeds of the next pandemic?
What state, what monster?
When failed, getting away to try again?
Like Oklahoma
your comment must be approved by
OH YEAH?
guess where all the internet monitoring flows to and you guessed where that vaccine maker sits
According to a list compiled by Dr. Patricia Doyle at rense.com, a host of strange ingredients are used to make up Hoffman-La Roche's anti-flu drug Tamiflu, which has recently been connected with bizarre behavior,
Patients using Tamiflu -- which many nations are stocking up on as a way to combat a possible pandemic of the deadly H5N1 bird flu -- reported delirium, hallucinations, delusions, convulsions, disturbed consciousness and abnormal behavior. The FDA reports that side effects reported with Tamiflu include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bronchitis, stomach pain, dizziness and headache.
ANTI-MONOPOLISTS VERY QUIET ON JUST ONE FIRM ''SERVING'' THE WHOLE WORLD