![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msagaraAnd my rant for the day. Which I'm trying not to turn into a rant, because it didn't start out that way.
Elsewhere on LJ, while looking at the small interest list of people who list Eva Ibbotson -- who has become a staple in my comfort reading list -- I happened upon a post about Amazon.com and its review system.
Up front: I don't really care about amazon.com and its reviews. I don't care what a novel's star ratings are. I simply do not care. Actually, let me clarify that: Every four months or so, when I'm ego-surfing, I will read what other people have written about my books. And I'll think about what's been written. The reviews I've received are not universally positive. Am I happy that people think I'm boring and pointless? Not really. Am I devastated? Not really.
This could be because I don't actually pay attention to people's reviews for other writer's novels on amazon.com. Or that I tend to shop in bookstores, so I don't see them. I don't care enough to have ever had anything yanked from the site. Once or twice I've been curious about a comment made, and that can lead me to other discussions - where the people who've left the comment are open to those - but that's about it.
I commented on the LJ in question -- and I'm sure in retrospect that it seemed like I was slamming them, and my intent with the first post was merely to point out that a number of their angry assertions were -- in my experience -- not the whole of the truth. The author wasn't wrong about what they did post, but assertions such as "authors have all the power" in pulling reviews, for instance weren't entirely true -- anyone can get a review they don't like yanked from any page, provided they can give a good reason for it; it's not a power that resides with just the authors.
This started a small exchange, and in the end, I shut up and ruminated on it for a week and a bit, and now I'm posting here.
The LJ user in question was also upset at the amazon.com introduction of the Real Name policy, and I don't understand this. I don't understand the sense that because their future anonymity has been strongly discouraged, they're losing a fundamental right to their freedom of speech. They did list one of their reasons for annoyance being psycho authors who could then track down people who wrote justifiably negative reviews. Which, fair enough. (They also had some complaint about authors encouraging others to balance out the negative reviews with positive ones -- and I don't have a problem with that; I don't do it, but if someone is going to publicly say positive things about your books and you care what your star rating is on amazon it seems perfectly reasonable to ask those people to post their public opinions in that venue.)
But… the person also said, in the exchange that followed my original response, that people speak more freely when wearing masks. And it's this point that I'm now addressing for a few hundred words before I twist back again.
The fact that people are more "honest" when they don't have to face any consequences for that "honesty" is probably true. This is, imho, endemic in that a certain cowardice motivates some people to lie without the safety of a mask, and it occurs to me that I would find that type of person of little interest in real life because they would not be there; they'd be the sum of their insecurities about hurting my feelings, or about my getting angry about a divergence of opinions, and I am so not interested in that that words utterly fail me.
If a person isn't there as the truth of themselves then who the hell am I talking to, and more to the point, why should I bother? If the only way I can get honesty is when you enter a booth and drop your name and take on a different persona, I can't see the point in even the idea of friendship with you, because you're obviously not whoever you claim to be when we first meet.
Okay, okay, I was wrong. Sue me. I'm ranting. That was a big damn digression. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, because it often happens that I am, and, contrary to the podium-pounding, I'm aware of it <wry g>.
Let me just get this out of the way: Amazon is a business. They don't have to support freedom of anonymous speech. They don't actually have to support comments at all because they're paying the bills. If they've decided that it's far less hassle to deal with a Real Name environment -- if they've decided that Real Names will cause them less email hassle, etc., then they're saving money -- and as a business, since they're supposed to be making money, this is perfectly well within their rights. They may have also noted that where people are forced to use Real Names, there is a pressure toward civil discourse -- or even silence. I've noticed that flames can erupt anywhere where real names are used -- but they tend not to be of the "I'm going to come to your house and kill you", add swearing and bad spelling as appropriate, variety. They tend to be heated. But real.
I don't understand the concept of privacy on the internet to mean "I can say anything I want under an assumed identity in a public forum" as if it were a right. Private and public are not the same thing. Private is that thing you do when you aren't putting yourself forward in public. Putting yourself forward in public in a way that you feel will somehow protect you from everything you choose to say doesn't strike me as a fundamental freedom. It strikes me as an act of cowardice. You have freedom of speech. You can use it. Insisting that you be able to use it on condition that no one actually know who you are, because you can't speak freely otherwise is to imply that you're living in a country in which you don't have freedom to speak. Which, okay. I believe the person lives in the US; I don't. There are certainly civil liberty issues which have become uncomfortable when seen from a distance. So…
There are exceptions. And I'm not going to argue the merit of the exceptions; I'll just say they at least make some sense to me. Reasons for not having a public identity while you operate on the internet that at least make sense to me:
1. "I use this identity to download illegal mp3s and movies", That would be logical to me, and I would have let the entire matter drop on its head at that point.
2. "I write porn or fanfic under this name and I don't want the hassle". I understand that. Also, if you write professional fiction and you write fanfic, this could cause you career difficulties. If you write fanfic at all, this could cause you legal difficulties. This also makes sense.
3. "I don't want my employers to find out what I've been saying and fire me". Makes sense as well, but. My advice, given internet security? Don't. Just … don't.
4. "I don't want the mob/gang/etc. to kill me" makes a lot of sense as well, although admittedly this is a bit of a stretch in most cases.
But… "I want to write reviews on Amazon" does not seem to fall into any of these categories for me. Turning a discussion about the ability to post reviews to Amazon.com into a discussion about internet privacy issues (the person doesn't want perspective employers to be able to find their reviews) doesn't seem to me to be the same thing.
But for other things? Public is public. The ability to lash out while hiding behind a rock is… not public. It's almost an act of cowardice, to me. Private is private. To try to do the one without doing the other doesn't seem to make sense. To feel that you can only say what you truly think if you're pretending to be someone else… strikes me as wrong on so many levels. Not in the moral sense, but in the sense of being true to self, of being oneself.
The point made by the other person was that the name shouldn't matter; it's the discourse, the ideas, the points made, and the quality of those points, that should count. And I can see this argument; there are times when we give authority more weight than content, which is stupid.
But if those things do count, I fail to see the merit of hiding one's identity. The fact that it's considered a right -- that freedom of speech and anonymity are considered almost synonymous, is baffling to me. You've got the right to say whatever you want, and you've also got the right to live with the consequences of saying it; that's the point of choice and speech, isn't it?
Elsewhere on LJ, while looking at the small interest list of people who list Eva Ibbotson -- who has become a staple in my comfort reading list -- I happened upon a post about Amazon.com and its review system.
Up front: I don't really care about amazon.com and its reviews. I don't care what a novel's star ratings are. I simply do not care. Actually, let me clarify that: Every four months or so, when I'm ego-surfing, I will read what other people have written about my books. And I'll think about what's been written. The reviews I've received are not universally positive. Am I happy that people think I'm boring and pointless? Not really. Am I devastated? Not really.
This could be because I don't actually pay attention to people's reviews for other writer's novels on amazon.com. Or that I tend to shop in bookstores, so I don't see them. I don't care enough to have ever had anything yanked from the site. Once or twice I've been curious about a comment made, and that can lead me to other discussions - where the people who've left the comment are open to those - but that's about it.
I commented on the LJ in question -- and I'm sure in retrospect that it seemed like I was slamming them, and my intent with the first post was merely to point out that a number of their angry assertions were -- in my experience -- not the whole of the truth. The author wasn't wrong about what they did post, but assertions such as "authors have all the power" in pulling reviews, for instance weren't entirely true -- anyone can get a review they don't like yanked from any page, provided they can give a good reason for it; it's not a power that resides with just the authors.
This started a small exchange, and in the end, I shut up and ruminated on it for a week and a bit, and now I'm posting here.
The LJ user in question was also upset at the amazon.com introduction of the Real Name policy, and I don't understand this. I don't understand the sense that because their future anonymity has been strongly discouraged, they're losing a fundamental right to their freedom of speech. They did list one of their reasons for annoyance being psycho authors who could then track down people who wrote justifiably negative reviews. Which, fair enough. (They also had some complaint about authors encouraging others to balance out the negative reviews with positive ones -- and I don't have a problem with that; I don't do it, but if someone is going to publicly say positive things about your books and you care what your star rating is on amazon it seems perfectly reasonable to ask those people to post their public opinions in that venue.)
But… the person also said, in the exchange that followed my original response, that people speak more freely when wearing masks. And it's this point that I'm now addressing for a few hundred words before I twist back again.
The fact that people are more "honest" when they don't have to face any consequences for that "honesty" is probably true. This is, imho, endemic in that a certain cowardice motivates some people to lie without the safety of a mask, and it occurs to me that I would find that type of person of little interest in real life because they would not be there; they'd be the sum of their insecurities about hurting my feelings, or about my getting angry about a divergence of opinions, and I am so not interested in that that words utterly fail me.
If a person isn't there as the truth of themselves then who the hell am I talking to, and more to the point, why should I bother? If the only way I can get honesty is when you enter a booth and drop your name and take on a different persona, I can't see the point in even the idea of friendship with you, because you're obviously not whoever you claim to be when we first meet.
Okay, okay, I was wrong. Sue me. I'm ranting. That was a big damn digression. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, because it often happens that I am, and, contrary to the podium-pounding, I'm aware of it <wry g>.
Let me just get this out of the way: Amazon is a business. They don't have to support freedom of anonymous speech. They don't actually have to support comments at all because they're paying the bills. If they've decided that it's far less hassle to deal with a Real Name environment -- if they've decided that Real Names will cause them less email hassle, etc., then they're saving money -- and as a business, since they're supposed to be making money, this is perfectly well within their rights. They may have also noted that where people are forced to use Real Names, there is a pressure toward civil discourse -- or even silence. I've noticed that flames can erupt anywhere where real names are used -- but they tend not to be of the "I'm going to come to your house and kill you", add swearing and bad spelling as appropriate, variety. They tend to be heated. But real.
I don't understand the concept of privacy on the internet to mean "I can say anything I want under an assumed identity in a public forum" as if it were a right. Private and public are not the same thing. Private is that thing you do when you aren't putting yourself forward in public. Putting yourself forward in public in a way that you feel will somehow protect you from everything you choose to say doesn't strike me as a fundamental freedom. It strikes me as an act of cowardice. You have freedom of speech. You can use it. Insisting that you be able to use it on condition that no one actually know who you are, because you can't speak freely otherwise is to imply that you're living in a country in which you don't have freedom to speak. Which, okay. I believe the person lives in the US; I don't. There are certainly civil liberty issues which have become uncomfortable when seen from a distance. So…
There are exceptions. And I'm not going to argue the merit of the exceptions; I'll just say they at least make some sense to me. Reasons for not having a public identity while you operate on the internet that at least make sense to me:
1. "I use this identity to download illegal mp3s and movies", That would be logical to me, and I would have let the entire matter drop on its head at that point.
2. "I write porn or fanfic under this name and I don't want the hassle". I understand that. Also, if you write professional fiction and you write fanfic, this could cause you career difficulties. If you write fanfic at all, this could cause you legal difficulties. This also makes sense.
3. "I don't want my employers to find out what I've been saying and fire me". Makes sense as well, but. My advice, given internet security? Don't. Just … don't.
4. "I don't want the mob/gang/etc. to kill me" makes a lot of sense as well, although admittedly this is a bit of a stretch in most cases.
But… "I want to write reviews on Amazon" does not seem to fall into any of these categories for me. Turning a discussion about the ability to post reviews to Amazon.com into a discussion about internet privacy issues (the person doesn't want perspective employers to be able to find their reviews) doesn't seem to me to be the same thing.
But for other things? Public is public. The ability to lash out while hiding behind a rock is… not public. It's almost an act of cowardice, to me. Private is private. To try to do the one without doing the other doesn't seem to make sense. To feel that you can only say what you truly think if you're pretending to be someone else… strikes me as wrong on so many levels. Not in the moral sense, but in the sense of being true to self, of being oneself.
The point made by the other person was that the name shouldn't matter; it's the discourse, the ideas, the points made, and the quality of those points, that should count. And I can see this argument; there are times when we give authority more weight than content, which is stupid.
But if those things do count, I fail to see the merit of hiding one's identity. The fact that it's considered a right -- that freedom of speech and anonymity are considered almost synonymous, is baffling to me. You've got the right to say whatever you want, and you've also got the right to live with the consequences of saying it; that's the point of choice and speech, isn't it?