On Bob’s provocative post on anonymous commenting, there appeared the following comment from frequent commenter and Tom Reilly enthusiast rightmiddleleft (edited to fix typos):
This is my last post at Blue Mass Group.
After thinking about your excuses for disclosing the Reilly campaign staffer, I have decided that you have breached your fiduciary relationship to those of us who have enjoyed posting to this site with the confidence that our posts are anonymous. You have chilled a lot of us as a result of your action. As a moderate and a Republican, I have also tried to present discussion points contrary to progressive thinking only to engender interesting debate. I have also learned a quite a lot of good things about the progressive agenda. Anonymous discussion engenders the purest type of debate.
It does not matter to me whose name was revealed by BMG. If the revelation was a Patrick, Gabrieli or Mihos staffer, it is not the point. You have truly publicly breached the trust that I and other bloggers have bestowed on you by revealing the source of what was a silly nasty post from some low level Reilly volunteer.
Many of us who are business people or are involved tangentially with the public and/or government or campaigns find it therapeutic to deal in discussions on the blogs. But for a number of reasons it is inappropriate for us to disclose our identities. We may have legal and other issues to consider before we put our thoughts to the keyboard. I am sure that many of those progressives who blog do not understand this problem. Unfortunately, there is the real litigious world out there and it is simply not worth it.
If BMG is aware of our IP address and is in a situation someday in the future where they have to disclose identities of bloggers, a number of us would not wish to have our names out in the blogosphere.
by: rightmiddleleft @ May 10, 2006 at 08:05:53 EST
I’ve got a couple of reactions to this. First, I hope RML will reconsider. I truly value the participation on this site of those, like RML, whose viewpoints may diverge from the majority of users. I still miss The Troll (one of our most cantankerous yet sometimes pretty insightful commenters from the Typepad days who stopped commenting after Pat Jehlen won her Senate seat), and I would be sorry to see another centrist or moderate conservative voice disappear.
Second, I can reassure RML that we have no intention of routinely publicizing users’ IP addresses or of trying to figure out which users use which ISP. I couldn’t care less whether you use RCN or Comcast, or whether you read this blog from work or from home (though your employer might). The Reilly volunteer situation, however, was a special case that threatened whatever integrity and credibility this site has. The worst thing that could happen to this site is for it to be turned into a vehicle for campaign operatives to level anonymous attacks at their opponents, and Bob, Charley and I will continue to do everything we can to prevent that from happening. Surely, RML, you would agree that allowing BMG to be used in that way would be a bad thing.
So I have no regrets about “outing” the Reilly volunteer who posted the anti-Patrick comment. It was the right thing to do, and I’ll do it again if someone else (from whatever campaign) tries something similar in the future. Frankly, we did the Reilly campaign a favor by informing them that their facilities were being used in that way. No campaign has any interest in nasty, anonymous attacks being leveled against other candidates from its offices – it just makes the campaign look bad.
Third, it should come as no surprise to anyone that this site logs the IP addresses of the people that visit it. Like I said before, the illusion of anonymity on the internet is just that – an illusion. Virtually every site you visit logs your IP address, and tracking an IP address is a one-step process. So if you are surprised that the operator of a web site (and believe me, most are far more sophisticated about this stuff than I am) is able to figure out more about you than maybe you’d like, all I can say is “welcome to the internet.”
Finally, for the record, RML’s comment contains a couple of assumptions that are not warranted. The notion of a “fiduciary relationship” between us and the users of this site regarding anonymity (or anything else) is, to say the least, misplaced. A “fiduciary relationship” implies legal responsibilities, and there simply are none. Nor have we ever made any sorts of promises regarding total anonymity – except with respect to the email addresses you supplied to sign up with the site, which have not been and will not be disclosed. Moreover, we expressly requested quite some time ago that persons affiliated with campaigns disclose their affiliations, and “johd” did not observe that rule. All of that said, I fully understand the considerations that RML sets forth in his comment that lead some folks to post anonymously (come on, RML, don’t be silly – of course we “understand” the “problem”). I am happy to respect RML’s reasons for posting as “rightmiddleleft” rather than under his real name – unless he, like “johd,” is breaking this site’s rules and threatening its integrity.
And now some general thoughts arising out of this issue. While it’s fun to gossip and trade barbs about candidates, we – and I think everyone who reads and participates in this site – actually have bigger goals in mind. We want a Democrat to win the Governor’s race. We want the Democratic party to decalcify itself, to stop favoring “insiders,” and to reform its rules so that it stands for more than the special interests that populate Beacon Hill. We want to show the party, the candidates, and the voting public that the “netroots,” the “internet activists,” call ’em what you will, are a significant force to be reckoned with, are not going away, and are going to influence the electoral process from now on. But we cannot advance any of those goals if we have no credibility with the public, the media, or each other.
As I’ve already said, I am not persuaded of the need to do away with anonymous posting. However, any blog that is being used, wittingly or not, as a mouthpiece for a campaign represents nothing other than politics-as-usual. I want no part of that – it’s exactly what we’re trying to get away from. We’ll continue to do what we can to keep getting away from it, and I hope you’ll join us and support us in that effort.
As long as you make it clear somewhere on the page that this is a violation of the policy, and that those who violate that policy give up their right to privacy, I think your decision to out the Reilly staffer is well within the realm of netiquette. Anonymous debate is one thing; anonymous sniping is totally unacceptable, political or not, and anyone who has ever tried to be an admin for any kind of Internet community or board knows the importance of setting limits on it.
<
p>
(Writing from the State House and I care not who knows it!)
is bad form and illegal. As we have leanred recently, the State Ethics Commission really frowns on such activity. Stick to the home computer!
I don’t really see the point of disclosure if the blogger in an unpaid volunteer on a campaign. Volunteering is just putting one’s beliefs in action. If a blogger is a paid staffer on a campaign, or a relative of a candidate, there’s an obvious need to disclose those ties, because they may influence the author’s opinion. But I don’t see how volunteering influence’s the blogger’s opinion — it is the blogger’s opinion. Tell me why I’m wrong . . .
is a tough call, I agree. The guy we outed was fair game because he was using the Reilly campaign’s resources to attack Patrick (plus, I had no way of knowing it was a volunteer before asking the campaign – for all I could tell from the IP address, it was Tom Reilly himself). But a volunteer for a campaign who goes home and blogs about whatever he feels like … I guess I don’t feel a burning need to insist that that sort of person disclose.
<
p>
That said, I just think it enhances credibility for people to know where you stand. If you believe strongly enough in a candidate that you’re willing to volunteer your time to help that candidate get elected, why not say so? What do you gain by keeping that fact a secret?
“If you believe strongly enough in a candidate that you’re willing to volunteer your time to help that candidate get elected, why not say so?”
<
p>
You seem to be operating on the assumption that everyone here is a political activist of some sort. I assure you that’s not the case.
<
p>
On Daily Kos, RMLâs post is known as a âGoodbye Cruel Worldâ post.
<
p>
How ironic that a âmoderateâ Bush supporter takes a principled stand on a âlegalâ/privacy issue.
…shouldn’t read.
<
p>
The first problem with trying to police this site should be obvious. Operatives will just come up with phoney names and post from home, the library, or otherwise get around the requirement. It won’t work. Are you and Bob and Charlie going to dig even deeper into where people are posting from? Lot of work for you if you do.
<
p>
Secondly, the biggest fear I would have is that you will — intentionally or not — look into postings you find suspect. I’ll bet the Reilly posting is not the first one of its kind on this site. What prompted you to look into that one? That kind of editorial effect is not conducive to a free and open exchange of ideas.
<
p>
Which goes to the final point: why not save everyone the headache (including yourself) and just accept that people ought to know that operatives post here. If someone suspects that a posting is from an operative, let the next person challenge that in his/her post. Vigorous debate is a great way to get toward truth. And wouldn’t it be nice to aspire to that?
<
p>
This is an issue of free speech and a potential chilling effect upon it (one only needs to know a small amount of American history to understand that there are many ways to supress speech). We should have all learned by now that the best counter to negative speech is MORE freedom of speech — not an attempt to police it.
about how I found the Reilly volunteer post. There’s no shortage of anti-Patrick posts on this site, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to check each of them. I searched my database by the IP address that I knew to be associated with the Reilly campaign, and that’s what popped up. Nothing popped up for my similar search of the Patrick IP address.
<
p>
Conflicts of interest cloud the truth. That’s why judges and others in similar positions are required to avoid them. To the extent we can avoid them, we will. That’s the best way to search for “the truth.”
There is an arbitrary standard no matter what standard you choose and campaign operatives DO post as if they were regular people and will continue to do it. Why even pretend you’re stopping that by outing campaign offices’ internet address thingys? My larger point was not the method that you used to uncover the Reilly posting, but that you’re being silly if you think you’re going to police the blog effectively. Why bother?
<
p>
Conflicts of interests MAY cloud the truth, as will many things. But speech doesn’t work that way. Its suppression is far more likely to cloud the truth, and even if almost everyone else on here agrees with the policy that is what you’re doing. I don’t know why you don’t take the bolder stance, allow people to write what they will, and invite the readers and posters to challenge the merits of the arguments. Hey, what if the Reilly guy was right? Or if he wasn’t, could NO ONE here respond?
Anybody can read back through my old posts and comments and see that I love to mix it up with our right-of-center posters, but we still need them here.
<
p>
Much though I disagree with RML on the issues, a lot of people feel the way he (I think RML’s a he) does and as liberals we need to hear that side of the story.
<
p>
Otherwise we’re no better than Bush, in his bubble of yes-men and ass-kissers.
<
p>
And RML is right that a lot of people will not post here if they have to worry about being outed. He’s wrong, however, that that’s a phenomenon of the right — I’d stop posting if I thought my relative anonymity was in jeopardy, and I’m no conservative. Outing posters has very real implications including potential legal problems and job troubles.
<
p>
That said, I still trust the BMG posse to protect identities, save for egregious violations of trust and credibility — among which I would count the Tom Reilly boondoggle.
BMG: this is tricky territory, but think you have navigated it about right…including your statements on how you intend to deal with this in the future.
I have a problem with this only because I outed a Jehlen staffer on Blue Mass Group shortly before the special election and your attitude was well who do you expect is on here.
<
p>
What makes this different? not your candidate?
Can you provide a link? I don’t recall the incident.
but I don’t remember what the content of the volunteer’s posting was.
<
p>
In any event, David has made (with my support) a clear distinction between someone using a campaign’s resources to make attacks, and campaign volunteers writing in with their thoughts. The latter is to be expected and even encouraged; but if campaigns are using their resources to anonymously attack other candidates, that’s not cool.
<
p>
In any event, more disclosure is better than less.
..as my IP address is a very plain vanilla one with no associations.
<
p>
I DO understand RML’s apprehension, but I had ALWAYS assumed that you evil Democrats were trying desperately to discover my true identity as Karl Rove….
<
p>
ATTENTION, mes amis! You leave your teeny electronic footprints no matter where you go on the Information Superhighway – so bear it in mind, and don’t post from your desk at the CIA.
are you searching IP addresses of all candidates on a regular basis? If folks from campaign sites are posting but not sniping is that ok? why? why not?
<
p>
will you out posters critical or sniping about other areas like health care if they post from a hospital or insurance company, education if they post from a school, etc.? I guess I don’t understand the point. Either this will shut some people up, drive people away, and then the folks here will be the “same” more or less. What good is that? I saw that happen with another board–nothing to learn when there’s nothing challenging.
<
p>
What if a person isn’t affiliated with a campaign–at least not their IP address and they attack a candidate?
<
p>
I’d suggest letting anonymous folks stay that way (unless there’s a threat of harm–then the police should be involved), and I’d hope that we (other community folks–those who have more background in these things than me) would challenge prejudiced or faulty comments and arguments, show that the poster has an agenda, etc.
<
p>
Anyway, enjoying the board, learning as I spend more time here, hope it continues with rich dialog.
I have to wonder why it is that so much time and energy is being spent on the anonomous posting issue. I think we should remain anonomous and allow our posts to speak for themselves.
<
p>
While I rarely agree with RML, I think he is right on this issue – but for other reasons. It occurs to me that if we are all interested in politics, we should also be educated enough about them to read the message and evaluate it on our own and for its own merit. It doesn’t matter a tinker’s dam to me who posts or what their affiliations are. If their are errors in fact, I am certain they will be ferreted out and esposed.
<
p>
I am a Patrick supporter – one of his first and most ardent. I have posted several attacks on Reilly that were far more cutting than anything I read from his campaign person. But anyone who reads my posts can tell that I support Patrick. If they disagree, they should disagree with what I write not who I am.
<
p>
I will miss RML. He has guts.
I have always assumed that most people who comment on this site are bias towards one candidate or another. I do not need to know the commentators identities, other than for voyeuristic reasons. How can we not expect that some negatives against some candidates come from people emotionally wrapped up in another candidate?
<
p>
I think I am smart enough to read through the bullshit of people venting.
that it will be prudent in its management of disclosure . As such, I will continue to throw my 2 cents in whenever I see an opportunity to do so.
nt