By Mr. BabyMan
| @
|
Friday, October 19th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
What rights to privacy can we expect when we choose to act anonymously/pseudonymously on the internet? Do they end at your public actions? Is it acceptable to violate the privacy of one class of user over another? Is it the purview of objective journalism to make that decision? The outing of Reddit‘s ViolentAcrez, “the Biggest Troll on the Web” by Gawker columnist Adrian Chen brings to light those questions and more this week.
But first, the headlines…Microsoft names launch dates and pricing for Windows 8 & Surface RT, Apple teases the possible announcement of the iPad Mini. Saturday Night Live mocks whiny tech bloggers.
Geeks Of Doom’s The Drill Down is a roundtable-style audio podcast where we discuss the most important issues of the week, in tech and on the web and how they affect us all.
Hosts are Geeks of Doom contributor Andrew Sorcini (Mr. BabyMan), VentureBeat editor Devindra Hardawar, marketing research analyst Dwayne De Freitas, and Startup Digest CTO Christopher Burnor. Occasionally joining them is Techmeme editor Lidija Davis.
This was a great episode. I find the idea that it’s okay to essentially ruin a person’s life as long as they may be a criminal, put forth by Tom, to be incredibly disturbing; that concept is a bit too Orwellian for my tastes. It’s even more terrifying to think that journalists are pushing us closer to Orwell’s 1984 than even the government. We live in such a public society as it is, the last shreds of individual privacy and freedom are being lost at an alarming rate.
I am a graphic designer and web manager for a fairly large nonprofit. As part of the communications team, I participate frequently in discussions regarding the social media presence of both employees and the organization. One of the reasons I use a pseudonym and/or only my first name is that I should be free to say what I believe in any forum or social media site and my employer should not be able to prevent me from expressing these beliefs and, at the same time, the organization should not have to be linked to my thoughts or ideas beyond a professional capacity. Using a pseudonym provides some protection and distance for both me and my employer.
The actions of Adrian Chen are shocking; he hides behind journalistic integrity after seriously damaging a person’s life for page views. These actions are nothing short of reprehensible, regardless of this person’s internet activities. Even if this behavior is technically covered under journalist ethics, it’s just wrong.
You may have noticed that we're now AD FREE! Please support Geeks of Doom by using the Amazon Affiliate link above. All of our proceeds from the program go toward maintaining this site.
Students of the Unusual™ comic cover used with permission of 3BoysProductions
The Mercuri Bros.™ comic cover used with permission of Prodigal Son Press
This was a great episode. I find the idea that it’s okay to essentially ruin a person’s life as long as they may be a criminal, put forth by Tom, to be incredibly disturbing; that concept is a bit too Orwellian for my tastes. It’s even more terrifying to think that journalists are pushing us closer to Orwell’s 1984 than even the government. We live in such a public society as it is, the last shreds of individual privacy and freedom are being lost at an alarming rate.
I am a graphic designer and web manager for a fairly large nonprofit. As part of the communications team, I participate frequently in discussions regarding the social media presence of both employees and the organization. One of the reasons I use a pseudonym and/or only my first name is that I should be free to say what I believe in any forum or social media site and my employer should not be able to prevent me from expressing these beliefs and, at the same time, the organization should not have to be linked to my thoughts or ideas beyond a professional capacity. Using a pseudonym provides some protection and distance for both me and my employer.
The actions of Adrian Chen are shocking; he hides behind journalistic integrity after seriously damaging a person’s life for page views. These actions are nothing short of reprehensible, regardless of this person’s internet activities. Even if this behavior is technically covered under journalist ethics, it’s just wrong.
Comment by nilcam — October 22, 2012 @ 10:03 am