Cato. Publius. A Federal Farmer. An Englishman. X. Candidus. What do these all have in common? They’re the pseudonyms of the authors of some of the most incendiary, provocative and important works of free speech in history.
I’ve been following a “4 A’s” analytical path in trying to understand the dynamics of social media. Anonymity, in this model, breeds lack of accountability, declining authority and finally, inaccuracy. But, I am exploring an alternative view.
Cato was the name used in England in the 1720s by two men who feared for their lives because of what they were saying about liberty and free speech. Cato’s Letters were the basis for much American liberal thinking on that topic, according to historian Leonard Levy. Candidus, A Federal Farmer and Publius were pseudonyms used by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, Richard Henry Lee and Samuel Adams when publishing the Federalist Papers. “X” was George Kennan, a member of President Harry Truman’s staff, who wrote the landmark treatise “The Sources of Soviet Power” that in essence summarized the outbreak of the Cold War.
But these historic names aren’t the only examples of how anonymity is enshrined in American discourse. A short paper from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, provides a very useful primer toward understanding anonymity, particularly on the Web.
These examples are, let’s face it, far easier to support than some of the drivel found on our Web. These writers took action at great personal risk to foster ideals and in some cases, call for revolution. The PR/Communications industry may excel in hyperbole, but it surely doesn’t think that the issues are equivalent.
However, given the language of many of the self-described social media gurus, a revolution of sorts is underway — traditional media is in decline (indisputably), the advertising model of funding entertainment is also declining. There is a rush to judgment about where those twin trends are leading; the gurus point to social media as the most likely destination. In their zeal (at least some of which is attributable to commerce), they are ready to declare the matter closed.
The concerns I have about social media — authority, accuracy and accountability among them — have found a convenient hitching post in anonymity. When I found myself caught in the undertow between two Twitter-ites, the lack of recourse — the lack of person, a human being, to whom to appeal was frightening. It all turned out fine, but only one of the parties wound up available for a civil discussion — the other remains cloaked.
So, I declared, that must be the problem — anonymity is the root of the rot. Now I’m not so sure. Social media afficionados will say that authenticity is the most important element of the online conversation. Being open about who you are, even to the point of erasing the line between public and private. This has become almost an article of faith, and anyone who questions it risks being branded a heretic.
I’m not ready to wholly embrace that anonymity is the right path in every case to building relationships online, even if those relationships are transaction oriented. I’m also not ready to dismiss the role that anonymous speech plays in fostering discussion, thinking and action.
As with many things, I find myself in the middle — I’d like to see less anonymity, because I believe in honest, open discourse. But I’d mourn the loss of the freedom to wear a mask when I see fit.
An interesting line of thinking. After 14 hours of experiencing and thinking today about how people communicate (the good and the bad), I tend to land somewhere in the middle — not for a lack of an opinion, but rather out of a desire for balance. For example, I am very cautious to separate my online work and personal relationships. But, that is not about anonymity as much as a way to exert some level of control so that my work does not become my life, or vice versa. It also makes clear to others when I am expressing personal opinion rather than presenting myself as a credible voice backed by or representing a particular organization or profession.
I think social media has a somewhat imperfect self-policing model. The lines between personal and professional, anonymous and open, can become quite blurred if you’re not careful. There are known voices in the realm of social media, and generally anonymous voices are inherently less credible. Though if they express an opinion or idea you relate to, they can provide validation for you and possibly even validation in the eyes of the public at-large when there is no other outlet for open discourse. When there is a critical mass of people who flock to an idea, the anonymous voice can have great power.
Thinking about your recent experience, maybe it goes back to control after all. When someone steals your identity — whether online or in person — it is a personal violation that results in losing control of something most of us have come to feel is a basic need. Your identity online is as much an expression of who you are — your credibility, your personality, your knowledge and experience — as your personal appearance, relationships or anything else you do in everyday life. When someone tries to take away that control, it is very scary. But, most of us still take the risk. We use credit cards, carry a driver’s license with a Social Security Number on it, neglect to shred those dang checks the credit companies send in the mail every day… similar risks to putting ourselves out there with an opinion or a name that someone else could easily alter or lay claim to.
OK, so my glass of wine has got me rambling now. The point I think I want to make is… you got burned; you did the right thing by reaching out to fix the situation in the only way you could; and you may be more cautious and take a few more precautions now than you might have otherwise. But you are still you. Those who know you and seek your credible voice still believe in who you are and what you do. We’re all learning to navigate this new tool, but it is just that — another tool in our arsenal to use so that we may be better able to communicate with each other. Many of the same rules and dangers still apply. And I, for one, will continue to take the risk to engage as myself, and trust that those who know me will respect the boundaries I have set between personal and professional. We’ll see what tomorrow brings.
This is an interesting discussion from a communications perspective. And it spawns a question. Why does social media necessarily need to be anarchic (social meaning, not political meaning)? The benefits of such a forum for the free exchange of ideas can have a degree of structure or protocol imposed upon them and still yield useful discussions, expression, exchange/sharing of information, etc. Other forms of strategic communication do. Qualitative research, for example, relies on structured methodologies in order to both nurture open expression and systematically account for thoughts/ideas/trends such that strategic and tactical decisions can be made. It’s used specifically for that duality.
Particularly in regard to an organization or firm leveraging social media to chronicle collective knowledge or insight, why can’t guidelines be established in order to address the issues of the 4 As? These guideline would “go both ways,” meaning there are protocols for contributors (like refraining from profanity) and protocols for leadership (no direct retaliation for opinions, how to effectively respond, etc). Indeed there are risks for both contributors and leaders; conscientiously approached, trust in this form of communication is eventually earned and maintained. (Think of all the other professional environments where trust needs to be established over time. There’s structure there, too). And because business—like social relationships—is dynamic, the guidelines can be strategically planned to evolve short term and long term with the use of social media. The guidelines can be responsive to changing usage patterns so that contributors and leaders grow to trust (and rely on the benefits of) the institutionalized use of social media.
No other communication paradigm/practice is anarchic, why assume that this one can be. A former instructor of mine once said “Bad design done on a computer doesn’t make it good design.” So why should a form of communication be unstewarded yet assumed to be accountable/accurate simply because it’s technology-based?
(Ha! Heather, I can ramble without the wine!)
Heather and Jamie, worthy comments, thank you!
H – I get the relationship between my personal brand and those who know it (and therefore me), where the trouble begins is in extending that brand awareness beyond my personal sphere. The “work” me and the “personal” me are pretty much the same. The comment with respect to anonymity is the question about accountability in Web. I’m developing this idea of sources being judged largely by the content of their postings and less by who they are — but this causes an authority/accuracy issue. Alan Greenspan was the foremost economic authority in the world for what, 18 years. Now everything he says is taken with a pound of salt — his content is subordinate to his identity. (yeesh, really academic stuff…) Warren Buffett made billions, but people who could follow his investment directions didn’t — surely it isn’t because of either content or identity. My model breaks with Buffett. Finally, the Web seems to be a steaming pile of manure most of the time. You find a little something buried in it that’s valuable, but even the good stuff is reeking.
J — Agreed; why does anarchy need to reign on the Web? Scientists have been working on an alternative ‘Net for a while, seeking a distraction-free conduit for their esoterica. Will we get alternative channels? The subscription model might work — imagine a porn-free Web for those who want one. Or an all-access one… Within the enterprise, businesses are using Web. 2.0 tools to create communities of knowledge and facilitate cross-functional teamwork, so I think it’s likely that the rules/guidelines based approach is a good starter.
OK, Sean, Heather and Jamie, help me with this: when using social media in a professional context, why wouldn’t you completely identify yourself?
(Forgive me if I’ve missed the big picture of your thoughtful posts. I ain’t much for fancy web learnin’.)
E – thanks for the question. It depends on what the objectives are for your involvement.
If you’re a critic and stand up, you risk charges of heresy and burning at the stake. There is an infrastructure of people with a vested interest in advancing the social media movement. Even calling out the potential issues with that trend can bring a load of pain down on your head (that’s one reason some folks prefer to avoid social media at all.) So, you can take a pseudonym and speak more freely — hence the relationship to political speech in this post.
Jamie, you have very good points. My thoughts were more of a personal nature regarding how I use social networks outside of the workplace. Being an internal communications practitioner, I am dealing with many of the same issues within the Company as we begin to roll out social networking tools as part of our Intranet Portal. We asked an employee team to draft guidelines for use of our internal social media tools. They did so by referring back to our Company values and ethics, pointing out the need for personal responsibility and taking the opportunity to strengthen awareness of our trade secrets / intellectual property policies — but in a surprisingly fun and engaging manner. Their fervent hope was to avoid having to put too many restrictions on people other than not allowing anonymity. I’m really excited about the clarity and simplicity of the message they developed. Figures that it took non-communicators to come up with it. However, the issues seem to be more difficult once you leave the confines of a closed Company structure. On the Web, anonymity, accountability, authority and accuracy are not subject to Corporate rules or even societal mores that might apply in face-to-face settings. When was the last time you found something truly shocking? On the Web, you cannot count on embarrassment or shame to keep people from doing things that are stupid, mean-spirited, or downright illegal. Anyone trying to build a business and credibility in the public eye is taking a great risk. While the potential positive exposure is tremendous, so is the potential downside. I do think that over time, though, those forums with structure and guidelines that require the “4 A’s” are the ones that people will look to as the more credible resources. I guess it’s kind of like how Facebook has surpassed MySpace in adult members because it has stronger identification requirements. People flock to it because it provides a greater degree of safety/protection, while still focusing on giving people the functionality they want.