Good enough for Publius, not good enough for Prager

Dennis Prager thinks that if you have something to say, that you can jolly well hand over as much personal information as needed to track your trollish hide down and berate you about civility:

Sexual images and prose for the purpose of sexual titillation are not new. But the ability of anyone in society to debase public discourse is new. Until the Internet, in the public's best-known venue for self-expression - letters to the editor published in newspapers and magazines - people either expressed themselves in a civilized manner or they were not published. And overwhelmingly, even those letters that were not published were written in a respectful manner because the letter-writers had to reveal their real names and their addresses (though only names and cities were published).

Do I detect someone bemoaning the lack of gatekeepers now? Prager
would certainly not be the first old school pundit to think that what
is really lacking about the Internet is that there is no way for people
like him to control the content of what is published online. The
downside to the olden days is that many viewpoints were voiceless
because "respectable" publication would publish them, and letters to
the editor are always at the mercy of the company that is going to
publish them. They can be cut to make room, and subtley altered in ways
that fit the biases of the editors of the publication. If you think
anonymous comments are bad, how about having your well-thought out
letter to the editor changed in such a way that makes you sound like
either an idiot, or agreeing with something you don't--with your name
and address on it.

That is why people - even generally decent people - tend to act so much less morally when in a crowd (the crowd renders them anonymous). That is why people tend to act more decently when they walk around with their names printed on a nametag. That is why people act more rudely when in their cars - they cannot be identified as they could outside of their car. There is no question but that most people would write very different entries on the Internet if their names were printed alongside their submission.

Anonymity is the norm in many social situations, yet you don't typically see much rudeness in public places where someone can be seen, and subjected to scorn, regardless of whether or not those present can identify them. You are anonymous in a new restaurant, but that won't stop someone from complaining about your behavior if you are being rudely disruptive. The restaurant might agree with the aggrieved guests and kick you out. In fact, if enough people ostracize you, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that they will ask you to leave. The rule is, you don't have to be identified to be punished in a group setting for acting out.

One need only look to the way that many radio and cable news hosts treat their guests to see that it is not just the Internet that is coarsening things. The behavior of many of radio and cable commentators is as deplorable in its own right. Bill O'Reilly is a perfect example of how Prager's thesis falls apart. The man is insufferably rude, violates virtually every manner applicable to his show on a routine basis, and yet has a huge following. The dialog online may be worse, but that is only because it involves a wider audience and doesn't have the FCC regulating online speech--yet.

Some might argue that anonymity enables people to more freely express their thoughts. But this is not true. Anonymity only enables people to more freely express their feelings. Anonymity values feelings over thought, and immediate expression over thoughtful reflection.

You mean like the writing of the Federalist Papers by our founding fathers under the nom de plume, Publius? Anonymity online provides imbeciles the opportunity to act according to their nature without reservation. It also has lead intelligent, articulate people to write more freely than they would if their identity were known. In fact, Prager's solution would be downright deadly for many liberty-minded people around the world, especially in the Islamic world and places like China.

Perhaps the real problem here is that Prager is only now beginning to realize that the average person is incapable of participating in a meaningful conversation about politics. Many people are all but driven by emotion. It is only natural that these much of society, perhaps most of society, would only be capable of expressing themselves with emotion when communicating anonymously.

It would be interesting to find out how many websites continue to encourage anonymous postings. Presumably, they would pay some financial price by insisting on posters identifying themselves. I don't know why, and I don't know how big a price that would be, but it is hard to imagine that it is higher than the price society pays when hate, anger and irrationality become the normal way of citizens expressing themselves. And even from the websites' own perspectives this policy is probably self-defeating. I doubt I am alone in reading fewer and fewer comments sections because of the low level of so many of the postings. Just as bad money chases away good money, moronic postings chase away intelligent ones. I have come to the point where I even read fewer comments posted about my own columns.

What is, and what isn't, a moronic comment is in the eye of the beholder once it gets to a certain threshold. The litmus test that I use for determining how worthy someone is to engage is their willingness to break down arguments and attack them. It is practically a scientific law of debate that anyone who boldly disses an entire comment without a thoughtful explanation, or who says that they are not going to bother doing so, is a pure, unadulterated moron.