It seems pretty clear that allowing people to behave in anonymity on the Internet yields some horribly unethical behavior. But the idea that this kind of behavior will ever end on both the Internet and the Web seems naive. As Mark Twain said, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” Why? Because despite what some folks (with a vested interest) say about unethical behavior, the Internet is not the World Wide Web and the World Wide Web is not the “World Wide West.” Sites on the Web are owned and managed by people who have vested interests in the site’s use and perception. Sites (admirably) like Facebook or Slashdot, are interested in making sure that good commentary gets seen and that garbage goes down the filter. Not all sites are interested in that sort of accountability and for good reason. While it’s true that anonymity can create unethical behavior, the flip-side of the existence of anonymity is that it can spark notorious forms of brilliant creativity and political descent. People who argue that we need total safety on the Web don’t entirely understand the benefit of those great works of the anonymous. We are not a consensus—and by we I mean everyone on planet Earth. The majority, at least in the US, and according to the Federalist Papers, do not get to tell the minority to be quiet or take a back seat1. The world needs to be as civil as it can, but in the end, there is reason for the oxymoron “civil unrest.” And you better bet that matters. Civil unrest is best fomented with some notion of anonymity. The long and the short of it, though, is that you can tell the kids to get out of your yard. It’s your site—manage the freedom of speech as you see fit. But don’t think you have any amount of control over the Internet. You don’t even know all the protocols.

It is awesome to me that all I had to do to find this link was type the phrase “front bus seat” and Rosa Parks Wikipedia entry was number one! Believe in that, fellow protesters! ↩

Reverend Billy (a.k.a. Bill Talen) and his wife Savitri D. organize protests (they call actions) that attempt to create a “radical instability” in the hopes that they will punch a hole in the matrix-like reality that is the average consumers’ existence. In an interesting interview over at Reality Sandwich, Jonathan Talat Philips, director of Evolver.net asks some pertinent questions of the anti-consumption duo. You’ll even find some handy tips for yourself about getting off the grid.

I’ve been using the sixty one for a bit and I have to say this site is clearly what music has been needing as a replacement for radio for the internet. Or, probably, this is what a music junkie like me needs. Pandora serves for passive listening for a lot people I would guess, but for folks like me who spend a lot of time digging around on iTunes and looking up the names of songs I heard on TV or in movies, this site is ideal. It basically turns finding new music into a video game. You can gain reputation points for completing “quests.” The more quests you get, the better your reputation. You share and download as well. I especially intend to let my friends in bands know about this. It’ll be a great way to get fans.

This is the funniest, truest statement I’ve read on a blog in a while:

This is the golden age for aspiring writers. We have a worldwide communications and distribution network where you can publish anything you want and — if you can manage to get anybody’s attention — get near-instant feedback. Writers just 20 years ago would have killed for that kind of feedback loop. Killed! And you’re asking me what word processor I use? Just fucking write, then publish, then write some more. One day your writing will get featured on a site like Reddit and you’ll go from 5 readers to 5000 in a matter of hours, and they’ll all tell you how much your writing sucks. And most of them will be right!

Thanks, Mark. Honest and spot-on.

I like hanging around on Amazon, perusing the numerous objects of necessity-filling that I had not known previously existed, but who knew that the reviews themselves could be hilarious? Take milk. At first glance, you might think, “Sure I could review milk. It might taste good or bad or creamy or not,” et cetera. But then, you would not be taking full advantage of the potential absurdity available to reviews of milk—or the ridiculous uses of said milk! Me, personally, I started with the 1 star reviews of milk, because bad reviews are funnier. Nonetheless, there are gems throughout.

[Hat tip to Marginal Revolution for spotting this inanity.]