Anonymity is an essential component of freedom of speech. In the days when Thomas Payne and pals were flaming King George III, a lot of writers used pseudonyms to keep the king's men from banging down their doors.
But what was happening on Amazon is that writers, or their agents or publicists, were writing "reviews" on Amazon that were just puff pieces. In order to meet consumer demand, they had to find a way to allow readers to judge the credibility of a writer. I believe there were cases of people claiming to be certain writers or well-known journalists as well. Was a no-brainer that this was a situation Amazon had to deal with.
There are some political bloggers who are both anonymous and well-known, people whose opinions are read by a wide audience but whose real identities are unknown.
I used to write book reviews (and I may again). When I did, I did so under my own name. When I reviewed a friend, I said so straight up.
I like what Slashdot does; unregistered comments are signed "Anonymous Coward".
The problem with pseudonyms isn't the writers, it's the readers. People have a responsibility to evaluate the authenticity of what they are reading, and too many people just don't. Freedom of speech includes a right of anonymity, but it does not include a right to be listened to and taken seriously. But too many people have so little concept of credibility and authenticity that they fail to see this. And so the public forums have to hand-hold the audience.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-25 09:34 pm (UTC)But what was happening on Amazon is that writers, or their agents or publicists, were writing "reviews" on Amazon that were just puff pieces. In order to meet consumer demand, they had to find a way to allow readers to judge the credibility of a writer. I believe there were cases of people claiming to be certain writers or well-known journalists as well. Was a no-brainer that this was a situation Amazon had to deal with.
There are some political bloggers who are both anonymous and well-known, people whose opinions are read by a wide audience but whose real identities are unknown.
I used to write book reviews (and I may again). When I did, I did so under my own name. When I reviewed a friend, I said so straight up.
I like what Slashdot does; unregistered comments are signed "Anonymous Coward".
The problem with pseudonyms isn't the writers, it's the readers. People have a responsibility to evaluate the authenticity of what they are reading, and too many people just don't. Freedom of speech includes a right of anonymity, but it does not include a right to be listened to and taken seriously. But too many people have so little concept of credibility and authenticity that they fail to see this. And so the public forums have to hand-hold the audience.