Anonymity, vs. Deception
Josh today seconds Jack Schaefer in Slate, in asking whether Lee Siegel's offense, in commenting pseudonymously under a pseudonym on his own blog posts was really such an offense.
I haven't followed this whole controversy too closely, and my general attitude is that if a fight breaks out involving Ezra Klein, I'm on Team Ezra. (That goes for the Ezra/Nathan Newman argument about whether the employer-based health care system can be saved, which I'll get to eventually.)
But it seems to me the answer is really simple: Anonymity is fine. Pseudonyms are fine. Both are long traditions that for various reasons have enriched our political discourse.
But impersonating someone else is not fine.
It would be wrong for me to post as "joshtpm," here or elsewhere, to create the impression that I was Josh Marshall. That would be dishonest. Posing as a teenager in chat rooms or creating fake celebrity MySpace pages are also activities that, while not uncommon (or so I've heard), are universally regarded as wrong.
So I think it's also wrong to use a pseudonym to pose as specifically anyone other than a particular person. So if you generally write under your own name (or another pen name), then adopt a pseudonym to comment on how brilliant your-own-name is, and how moronic are his detractors, you are specifically posing as anyone but yourself. And that seems to me a deception exactly comparable to posing as someone else. It's not the same as a "this could be anyone" pseudonym. It's far from the worst thing one could do, but I don't see any mystery in why it's wrong.
Undermining the credibility of one's own blog -- it's not all just tightly reasoned argument, after all -- bespeaks a blogger with some serious psychological issues.
September 7, 2006 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if I posted even under my own name about what a transcendant genius I am and how you're all (your intensifier here) morons not to appreciate it, I'd be bounced from TPM pretty quickly, and there'd be no issue of anonymity or deception. Of course, it'd be true, but I'd just as soon not say it. My friends are already sick of hearing it. So there's plenty wrong with what he did.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 7, 2006 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anonymity has a grand tradition; Publius comes to mind.
Sockpuppetry? Not so much.
I don't get why Josh doesn't get this one...?
Dissent Protects Democracy.
September 7, 2006 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Composer Robert Schumann wrote under two pseudonyms: Eusebius (representing his lyrical, contemplative side) and Florestan (his fiery, impetuous one).
So perhaps more than one persona, if one has multiple personalities. I'm not sure he ever got into an argument with himself.
Many writers use different names depending upon the type of book they are writing.
Sockpuppets are just lame, but so are trolls and we have learned how to live with them. Personally I think if you want people to take your opinions seriously than put your name on them. (Exceptions for whistleblowers).
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
September 7, 2006 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anonyminity is fine.
I'm wondering what John Lott and Mary Rosh think of this. :-)
September 7, 2006 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah but I don't think "Barbara Vine" writes reviews of Ruth Rendell's books:-)
That is the deception here. When Seigel Blogs under his own name he isn't anyomous. If he wants to post anyomous comments on various blogs for whatever reason that would be one thing. Posting anyomous comments on his own Blog commenting on his own writing is an entirely different thing.
September 7, 2006 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
But impersonating someone else is not fine.
So who, real or known, did Siegel impersonate? Impersonation wasn't Siegel's crime and is not intrinsically wrong; else tell that to the nearest Dolly, Liza or Tina at your local cabaret.
What Siegel did perpetrate was a fraud upon his readership and employer. His sin no less than academics falsifying data in support of their research; a company cooking books to inflate valuation; an employee creating false emails or letters of commendation to augment an annual review; the journalist fabricating events or people in stories that could, in ways large or small (recognition, praise, awards), advance a career.
September 7, 2006 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody famous did do that though-- did Shaw review his own plays? Somebody like that.
Anyway, on today's internet the crime isn't being anonymous, it's faking a public discussion that's really only happening inside your own head. As others have noted, that's fraud, or as I like to call it, it's Glenn Greenwald.
September 7, 2006 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having been around a lot of blogs/message boards for a while...sockpuppetry is at the top of the no-no list. It undermines the person's on-line credibility. He was using an alter ID trying to give his point of view credibility under the guise of being an "uninvolved" party
September 7, 2006 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Siegel's writing was mostly gag-worthy. Pity the fool. On the surface this "Sprezzatura" stuff is a hilarious outing of a "grabbing for celebrity-and-Uma Thurman-has-passed-me-by" scribe.
Reality says it's a smoke screen.
"I don't believe this version of events coming a week after Siegel libeled Professor James Kincaid. Ezra Klein had this info for months. No one at TNR had a clue about this? Bullshit."
I'm with Gilliard on this.
September 7, 2006 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meow! Shall I put out a saucer of cream.
September 7, 2006 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Having been around a lot of blogs/message boards for a while...sockpuppetry is at the top of the no-no list."
Yup. This is an old debate. Let's learn from our forefathers.
Check out the Wikipedia page on Sockpuppetry. The key definition:
The first known usage of the term is in 1993 on a listserv, and it was in widespread usage by 1996.
Sockpuppetry and plagiarism are capital offenses for very good reasons. The "sockpuppet" concept and term originated at the very dawn of the WWW for very good reasons.
Frankly, I've been astounded by the lack of knowledge of the concept by many prominent internet writers, including JMM, Jack Shafer, and Garance Franke-Ruta. It's an important and vital concept underlying the blogosphere.
September 7, 2006 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't get why Josh doesn't get this one...?"
Josh has a somewhat tenuous grasp on the comment-based blogosphere. He's simply not familiar with the some of the core issues that others have faced in the past.
It explains why he's made a rather sizable number of missteps with TPMCafe, and why the other (arguably more interesting) sites in TPMMedia are comment free.
He is able to learn, however, as witness his correction today on TPMMothership after readers steered him in how to begin to grapple with the issues at hand.
September 7, 2006 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So who, real or known, did Siegel impersonate?"
He impersonated Not-Siegel, in order to be able to write about Siegel.
"Impersonation wasn't Siegel's crime"
Siegel's crime did indeed fall under the broad rubric of impersonation, but there is a more specific and more accurate word for his crime: sockpuppetry.
September 7, 2006 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is (like the other replies have pointed out) a difference between having multiple personas and sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is a subset of multiple personas that are specifically for deceptive commenting.
There are various types of sockpuppets as well. Mr. Siegel used the Biggest Fan sockpuppet, one where a writer/blogger pretends to be a fan, praising the writer and attacking his critics. The other common sockpuppet is the Fake Loon, where the commenter acts like a parody of a critic so that the original can tar all critics.
Sockpuppetry is more related to Astroturfing (fake grassroots campaigns) than to authors using pseudonyms.
September 7, 2006 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sort of amused by this. Am I Not-Siegel too? Are you? Did Siegel impersonate both of us and every other human in the world besides himself? That would make him the greatest impersonator of all time.
September 8, 2006 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm sort of amused by this. Am I Not-Siegel too? Are you? Did Siegel impersonate both of us and every other human in the world besides himself?"
Yes, we are both Not-Siegel too, but I believe that isn't the point here.
If you post as Not-Siegel, you are not impersonating anyone, since you really are Not-Siegel.
However, if you had set up a new TPMCafe identity for the purposes of agreeing with your own comments, you'd be impersonating Not-Neil, which is a roundabout definition of sockpuppetry.
September 8, 2006 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would just like to add that Siegel's form of sockpuppetry is particularly egregious. When a single commenter posts under multiple identities and pretends to be someone else, that is one thing. When the blogger himself adopts another identity and pretends to be someone else, that is worse. It is like the difference between a con perpetrated by a drifting bunko artist, and one perpetrated by the police themselves. The blogger is the person who takes main responsibility for the integrity of his blog.
September 8, 2006 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. I have a really dumb question. When did this happen and where? And how did anyone figure it out?
Jan Knaus
Uma Thurman
September 8, 2006 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink