A Greater Impact

"I have something to say to ♥Tim.♥ You're such a great guy and you're so funny and nice. I really really like you, Tim. I want to say who I am, but I'm sort of afraid to. I guess you already knew that someone liked you from that Claire thing on Sam's blog. (I'm the anonymous person who was freaking out. sorry about that, too.)

I bet you're wondering who I am. Well, I'm someone you see every day. I bet you would be shocked if you found out who I am. Well, I'll see you tomarrow, even though you won't know who I am. Oh, and I'll read all comments on this post.

Happy Valentine's day. ♥"

This was written a year ago today. It was put on the guest blog at 5:44 PM on February 13th, 2006. The full text can be read here.

I'd like to take this time to point out that almost no one remembers this post, and, when the author read it, she asked when it was written.

My point is that this is probably one of the most meaningful anonymous posts ever made, and no one remembers it.

Another important comment was the one referenced in this post, left by a stranger named Claire, and it was a comment on Tim's post "Run and Hide".

Claire's comment was extremely memorable.

No one remembers it.

Comments, in themselves, are highly forgettable, probably because most of them are unimportant ramblings, and it's very easy to assume that all of them are. Even the most vicious comments are rarely remembered, with the exception of a rare few.

I am not going to deal with how memorable comments are, because it will accomplish nothing to say that there are quite a lot of them and that you will never remember any of them because, frankly, you already know that.

The important thing about comments are the impact they make when they are current. Past comments, like old fads from the sixties, have very little impact on what we do in the present. Comments that are relatively recent however, may have an impact.

I doubt VOA ever took the time to really define impact. He liked the word to the point of an obsession, but I doubt he went as far as to really know what it means.

Impact in regards to a comment is the ability it has to make people think differently due to it, or, on a larger scale, act on it.

The comment that probably had the most impact was one I left on Tim's blog on December 25, which has since been deleted. Most of you will probably recall the comment in question. It was not posted anonymously, and if it had been, probably would have not received as much attention, mainly because it's easier to be mad at a faceless evil than a someone you know. This comment would have had nearly no meaning if it had been left anonymously, because the only thing that mattered about that comment was who posted it.

There is only one type of comment that has a greater impact when it is posted anonymously, and this comment is so meaningless it is hardly worth mentioning it in the first place. For the sake of the Valentine's Day quote I began this post with, though, I will mention it.

This comment is the one that draws attention to its anonymity, and within this category there are two types of comments.

First, there are the shrill, pointless kind that do nothing else but draw attention to their anonymity. These comments were, at one point, so numerous it was disgusting, but since the disappearance of VOA, these comments have faded (why? read the answer here). An example of this type of comment would be something like this:

ROB RHET said...

Anagrams Are Run! Figure Mine Out, I Dare You!

This Picture Is Disgusting. Hillarious, But Disgsting.
The other category of this type of comment would be the one that draws attention to its anonymity THROUGH its meaning, and it is this type of comment that is exemplified by the Valentine's day post that I quoted. Though this post would have been very exciting if we had known who posted it, it is more exciting when we don't. We know someone likes Tim, but the answer is just beyond our reach.

Another example would be a shady character known as "trojan" who existed for about two or three weeks before disappearing. There were several guesses as to who she was, but she never did anything but profess her love for spartan, and was therefore never caught.

Members of this category are few and far between, because the majority of comments with any real meaning are posted by someone.

Besides the category of anonymous commenters that draws attention to their anonymity, most comments that are left anoymously have no more impact than if they were signed. Some, in fact, have less. The vicious ones, for instance. No one really cares if an anonymous commenter bashes them, because there isn't anyone to get mad at. If it turns out, though, that it was your friend doing the bashing, you may go as far as to act upon it, and, as I mentioned previously, this means it has an impact.

So where does VOA fit into all this?

In a correspondence, I asked him to justify his anonymity, and he told me this:

"For my job, anonymity is a necessity. It prevents others from getting to me, and gives me a greater impact on the comment board."

We all know that his hypocritical nature is clear from the first part of the second sentence, but I've addressed that already. It's the second part that interests me.

Is his impact really greater, as he claims? Would we act differently towards him if he was not anonymous?

The answer to the second question is, of course, yes. We would treat the actual person differently, respecting his uncanny ability to figure out the identity of anonymous commenters, but, at the height of the VOA craze, we regarded him as almost a god. Would we have been as fascinated with him if he were merely a man?

We would have respected him a great deal, but we would not have been his cult members for that short time that we were. VOA has also claimed that his anonymity gives him greater credibility, and it probably did for a short time. But now, the craze is over. VOA's credibility is gone, we've seen his faults, we realize he is just a man, masquerading as something more.

We realize the masquerade is not cool, as we once thought, but childish. He is a little boy who learned a card trick and is showing it to anyone and everyone who will listen. At first the sleight of hand amazed us, but it grows boring now.

VOA had a great impact because of his anonymity at first, but now we grow tired of him. We have no face to attribute the talent to, and therefore there is little to remember. If he had really wanted a "greater", lasting impact, he should have revealed his identity from the start. Maybe if he had, he would not merely be a memory now. A memory of how foolish we were in the past to idolize such an unimportant figure.

Your impact, my friend, is no more.

McIntyre v. Ohio Electives Commission

"'Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.' Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."

--From McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.

ur dum

I am not.

Perhaps you disagreed with the content of this post. What about it exactly did you disagree with? Is there any way I could, perhaps, make it less offensive without compromising the overall meaning?

I would also like to point out that, though I respect your overall goal towards efficiency, "dum" is generally spelled with a b at the end, and you also spelled "your" incorrectly.

Some comments are as pathetic as this.

Some really are. Some people decide that the world will be a better place by expressing their belief that the author is unintelligent (or perhaps unable to speak).

Some are more vicious, and though personally I feel it is the vicious comments that are most important to sign, some don't. The question of whether a controversial comment loses its meaning when unsigned is for another day, another essay. But some feel that people should not be allowed to post an anonymous insulting comment.

This is the crucial turning point of the debate over anonymity. Does a mean-spirited anonymous person have a right to anonymity? By posting a mean comment, does he lose that right? What is the point of anonymity without being able to speak your mind? If someone is being insulted, do they have a right to know who is insulting them? Would it be better off if they didn't know?

The last question is a matter that every blog owner needs to decide themselves, and is a matter of personal preference. Is it better to know that someone is insulting you, even if it turns out to be your friend? This is not the matter that I will be dealing with.

I will be addressing the question of the rights of the insulted against the rights of the commenter. Does an insulted person have a right to know who posted the angry comment, even at the expense of the anonymity of the commenter?

In a word, no. An anonymous commenter's rights shall be preserved at all costs.

Anonymity is one of the most precious things in this world, and with increasing security and restrictions on rights, it could be also be one of the most powerful.

It should also be pointed out that the blog administrator has all of the power in these situations, whether he knows who the commenter is or not. He can choose whether his blog allows anonymous comments at all and also choose to delete the comment if he wishes. The identity of the commenter is, in itself, trivial, and the mere desire to know who posted the comment should not be allowed to compromise the rights of the commenter.

VOA and the likes take it upon themselves to reveal the identity of the commenters, without regard to rights at all. He does not regard the anonymous commenter's right to anonymity, and he also does not regard everyone else's right to ignorance. I know this sounds a little bizarre, but sometimes there are certain comments people would rather not know who posted, and they have that right. It also detracts from the content of the comment, and although it may be as pathetic as "ur dum", it may also be worthwhile.

It also seems that VOA's idea that the anonymity gives him "a greater impact on the comment board" (actual quote) would make him realize that an unwilling identity depreciates the value of the comment by distracting other readers, but his hypocrisy will be addressed in a later essay.

Innocent commenters are not the only victims whose rights are being taken away. It is wrong to reveal the identity of any commenter, malicious or otherwise.

The Dignified Circus Freak

There is an implication that anonymous people are bad. I think you'll probably agree that it can be summed up in the following statement:

"If you are anonymous, it means you have something to hide."

I do wish this was not true, as though it is not infrequent that anonymous people are hiding something, this is essentially the equivalent of taking any discriminatory statement and using it as fact.

Many jocks are not, in fact, unintelligent, just as many anonymous people have nothing to hide.

Case in point: the mad quoter.

The mad quoter is probably the most innocent serial anonymous commenter there is (in this case I'm referring to the original mad quoter, Andrew, and not the knock-offs). The mad quoter posts only on Tim's blog, quoting various people, giving us little gems of wisdom.

The x-factor in the equation is exemplified here: what are his purposes for being anonymous?

There are a few common reasons.

First, it is enjoyable to know that you're confusing others. The mad quoter, to use our example, had the comfort of knowing he was a mysterious figure whose identity it would have been almost impossible to find out. Even the Vanquisher had no idea who he was.

Second, a particularly nasty comment is rarely accompanied by a name, for the obvious reason of not wanting people to know who said it.

The Vanquisher (and the commenters that try to imitate him by taking guesses) do not distinguish between these two reasons.

In fact, the majority of commenters that the Vanquisher decide to reveal the identity of are completely innocent, and merely comment anonymously for the sake of comment anonymously. The blog with the most anonymous commenters is probably his. By revealing anonymous people, the Vanquisher is pandering to the masses. He is not a hero. He is a circus freak, albeit a dignified one.

He was useless from the beginning, when he decided to reveal that "Rob Rhet" was an anagram of "brother". Not only was it obvious, but it was pointless. Rob Rhet was a trivial commenter, and if someone wanted to get rid of him, they only needed to ignore him. By paying him attention, we created an entire series of anagrams. If the Vanquisher really wanted to find out why there are so many anonymous commenters, he needs only to look in his mirror.

The Vanquisher does reveal the identity of anonymous commenters, but there has been no shortage of them, either vicious or otherwise.

He creates them. People love to see if he can guess their identity.

I was wrong.

The Vanquisher is brilliant and talented, to be sure.

But he is completely unnecessary.

An Introduction

I was thinking about this.

Is it a given that the Vanquisher of Anonymous-ness does good?

I never actually went the length to wonder whether it was right that he reveals the identity of anonymous commenters.

But then, is it a given that anonymous commenters do bad?

Why? Even even when they leave a scathing reply, is that bad?

I'm not so sure.

But I intend to find out.