On anonymity and transparency in conversationsand debates

==========>Between Tom Grubisich and You <===

Hicham Ouazzani
Today at 8:34pm


I'm sorry, but i'm not a native english speaker (arabic french spanish firstly) I didn't understand the last part of ur question:

"Anonymous postings make up most of the user comments on most sites. Even seemingly innocuous subjects -- carpooling! -- are cloaked in anonymity. Is there a way out of this that doesn't hurt free expression as the framers of the First Amendment envisioned?"

is anonimity a problem? you mean when it's a voluntary anonymity? if the question means this, my answer is no. this is not a juridical question but a psychological one.

Now if the question is "we need to stop anonymity on internet forums" the answer is : i think it's possible to stop anonymity on internet by defining an internet identity in way there exist identity card. I think internet identity can be acceptable in countries where the identity card exists.

If you argue that u want to give every one an identity, then i think that you can pass the constitutionnal barriere even in america...

did i understand your question ?

i hope that u don't mind if i publish ur question on a Rest offtheworld's note.
________________________

Tom Grubisich
Today at 8:48pm
Report Message


Thanks for your comment, Hicham. (Your English, by the way, is fine.) I'm not for forcing people to identify themselves. All I'd like to see is sites to encourage people to be themselves. Most registration processes invite people to use handles for their identity. As I've tried to say here and elsewhere, conversations and debates mean more when you know whom you're talking with. If you went to a reception, and everybody wore a paper bag on his or her head, wouldn't that inhibit conversation?

-------------------------------

Hicham Ouazzani
Today at 8:59pm



I see. But anonimyty can also be something great no ?
i'm going back to my home in Tangier (Morrocco now), i'll be more precise when i'll be on my desk. By the way, check Rest offtheworld, i think it's a good journal ;-) . And i need smart readers ;-))

----------------------------------

Hicham Ouazzani
Today at 1:28am



are you saying that u can be urself only when you use you pre-defined identity ? if yes i don't agree. Pre-difend identities are emotionnaly and historicaly connoted. (connotated? )
i'll give you a historical exemple: Venise-italy.
It's during the carnaval when people are masked that the relations are less inhibited.

While this is not about conversations and debate but sex and fun.
Concerning the case u quote i agree with you. The reason is the context. To have an intelligent and smart debate with someone u need to know part of it's backround so u can avoid intercultural mistakes. the problem in every society you have multiple social and cultural background, you don't need to meet with a foreigner to test this kind of miscompréhension.

I would say that real transparency is what you're talking about. First it is not acievable. Second those who walk on this way are very few. It's a kind of yoga as indian say or a kind of Jihad nafs (instinct fight)
as the muslim say. the jewish know this and the christian also and atheist too.

if you try transparency you try to give good fundations for the debate. Not every one has interest on good debate foundations.

isn'it?