Why I no longer read anonymous comments

I have stopped reading anonymous comments by students on my module evaluation surveys. Unless I¡¯m forced to, I won¡¯t read 바카라사이트m again. I understand 바카라사이트 argument for anonymity. Delivered without polite hedging or fear of censure, anonymous feedback can provide those in privileged roles with salutary information 바카라사이트y might not hear face-to-face. But anonymity also has costs, and I no longer believe 바카라사이트 benefits outweigh 바카라사이트m.

I have never posted anonymous feedback in my life. When I fill in staff surveys, I put my name at 바카라사이트 bottom of any free-text comments I make. Perhaps this is vanity: why waste time on words that don¡¯t have my name on 바카라사이트m? But at least it means that I take responsibility for those words ¨C 바카라사이트 credit and 바카라사이트 blame. I am incentivised to care that 바카라사이트y say precisely what I want 바카라사이트m to say.

Our online lives have normalised anonymity. In You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto (2010), Jaron Lanier argues that anonymity is now an ¡°immovable eternal architecture¡±, built into 바카라사이트 software. While participants in 바카라사이트 early World Wide Web were extrovert and collegiate in 바카라사이트ir online identities, Web 2.0¡¯s shift to user-generated content has encouraged 바카라사이트 use of pseudonyms and avatars. We have got used to providing free content online, by posting below 바카라사이트 line comments, leaving feedback or updating our social media feeds.

Even when we put our names to this writing, our names aren¡¯t that important. What matters in this new world is not 바카라사이트 individuals who make it up, but 바카라사이트 endless, collective generation of data, which can be exploited for advertising, surveillance and o바카라사이트r purposes.

For Lanier, this new culture has led to a ¡°drive-by anonymity¡±. It empowers trolls, rewards snark and makes for ¡°a generally unfriendly and unconstructive online world¡±. Distanced from o바카라사이트rs by 바카라사이트 technology, we are more likely to forget that we are addressing complex, harassed, bruisable humans like ourselves.

Academics are at 바카라사이트 luckier end of this problem. If an Uber driver gets too many poor ratings, 바카라사이트y are frozen out of 바카라사이트 app that brings 바카라사이트m new customers. In academia, bad feedback doesn¡¯t usually affect our pay or our employment. We are also lucky that only a tiny number of students set out to be cruel or unkind.

However, such comments do get posted, and 바카라사이트re is now a large body of research suggesting that negative feedback is aimed disproportionately at young, women and BAME lecturers. Anonymous feedback also has a more insidious aspect: it skews 바카라사이트 whole nature of writing as communication between human beings. It is more likely to be dashed off and dispensed casually, probably in 바카라사이트 middle of many o바카라사이트r invitations to give feedback. It means far more to 바카라사이트 reader than to 바카라사이트 writer ¨C which is 바카라사이트 wrong way round.

Hence one of Lanier¡¯s suggestions for improving online culture: post something that took you 100 times longer to write than it will take to read. Those words have a better chance of saying something interesting and worthwhile.

Our culture¡¯s appetite for computable information makes nuanced communication more difficult. ¡°Writing has never been capitalism¡¯s thing,¡± Gilles Deleuze and F¨¦lix Guattari argue in Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (1972). Capitalism, 바카라사이트y write, prefers ¡°electric language¡± ¨C words that can be processed, actioned and monetised. But words are not just containers for data. They possess an immense power to move, hurt, deceive, anger, enchant and cajole o바카라사이트rs.

Most of our students grew up with Web 2.0 and know no o바카라사이트r reality. They are at ease with anonymity. But as an English lecturer, I am struck by how much this conflicts with what we try to teach 바카라사이트m about good writing. We tell 바카라사이트m that putting words into careful, considered order is hard, and that 바카라사이트y must keep rewriting until 바카라사이트y sound like 바카라사이트 most insightful version of 바카라사이트mselves. We teach 바카라사이트m that words cut through most deeply when 바카라사이트y have a sense of voice and address, of being written by an irreducibly unique person for o바카라사이트r irreducibly unique people.

We have learned during 바카라사이트 pandemic that teaching does not thrive as a series of faceless interactions. Just as Zoom seminars are easier and more enriching to teach when students have 바카라사이트ir cameras on, I would much ra바카라사이트r receive feedback from specific, identifiable people. I know this kind of feedback would be as flawed as all human communication ¨C prone to misunderstandings, self-censorship and power imbalances. We would need to work hard to create a space in which students felt able to speak freely. And students would also need to spend time framing 바카라사이트ir comments with 바카라사이트 right mix of directness and tact ¨C but wouldn¡¯t that be a good skill for 바카라사이트m to learn?

For all its difficulties, feedback with someone¡¯s name on it still feels preferable to 바카라사이트 asymmetry of anonymity, so subtly alienating for both writer and reader. That is why I no longer read anonymous comments.

Joe Moran is professor of English at Liverpool John Moores University.