This is somewhat tangential, because I do agree with your position on Amazon, in that I believe they had every right to do what they did, and I'm also glad that the system was put in place. But I do disagree with something else that you said -
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.
I don't think the issue is as black and white as that. To take the most obvious example, everyone tells white lies. Another example - how much weight your words carry depends greatly on who you are; if an anonymous investor says that he's selling a certain stock, few people would care; if Warren Buffett were to say the same thing, the market value of said company would go down 10% in the next 24 hours. Or, as a more pertinent anology, if I were to post a negative review about a new sci-fi author, not many people would notice; if Neil Gaiman were to do the same thing, however, people would notice, and it might even have an impact on the book's sales. For this reason, I think that I'd prefer an anonymous negative review rather than one with a name attached (especially if the name is a recognizable one), if only because the anonymous review carries less weight.
So while I do think that there are people that abuse anonymity, using it to engage in ad hominem attacks and so forth, I also think it's a useful way, sometimes, for certain people, to get their views heard without disturbing the status quo of whatever system they're in, because that way the review/opinion is judged solely on its own merits and not by the name attached to it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-25 12:36 pm (UTC)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.
I don't think the issue is as black and white as that. To take the most obvious example, everyone tells white lies. Another example - how much weight your words carry depends greatly on who you are; if an anonymous investor says that he's selling a certain stock, few people would care; if Warren Buffett were to say the same thing, the market value of said company would go down 10% in the next 24 hours. Or, as a more pertinent anology, if I were to post a negative review about a new sci-fi author, not many people would notice; if Neil Gaiman were to do the same thing, however, people would notice, and it might even have an impact on the book's sales. For this reason, I think that I'd prefer an anonymous negative review rather than one with a name attached (especially if the name is a recognizable one), if only because the anonymous review carries less weight.
So while I do think that there are people that abuse anonymity, using it to engage in ad hominem attacks and so forth, I also think it's a useful way, sometimes, for certain people, to get their views heard without disturbing the status quo of whatever system they're in, because that way the review/opinion is judged solely on its own merits and not by the name attached to it.