Monday Midday Briefs

Psuedonymity on the Internet

I guess to the surprise of few I come down strongly in favor of psuedonymity.

But there as an interesting piece in the Washington Post today on the subject:

 

These days we want “transparency” in all institutions, even private ones. There’s one massive exception — the Internet. It is, we are told, a giant town hall. Indeed, it has millions of people speaking out in millions of online forums. But most of them are wearing the equivalent of paper bags over their heads. We know them only by their Internet “handles” — gotalife, runningwithscissors, stoptheplanet and myriad other inventive names.

Imagine going to a meeting about school overcrowding in your community. Everybody at the meeting is wearing nametags. You approach a cluster of people where one man is loudly complaining about waste in school spending. “Get rid of the bureaucrats, and then you’ll have money to expand the school,” he says, shaking his finger at the surrounding faces.

You notice his nametag — “anticrat424.” Between his sentences, you interject, “Excuse me, who are you?”

He gives you a narrowing look. “Taking names, huh? Going to sic the superintendent’s police on me? Hah!”

In any community in America, if Mr. anticrat424 refused to identify himself, he would be ignored and frozen out of the civic problem-solving process. But on the Internet, Mr. anticrat424 is continually elevated to the podium, where he can have his angriest thoughts amplified through cyberspace as often as he wishes. He can call people the vilest names and that hate-mongering, too, will be amplified for all the world to see.

 

I guess in some ways I am an internet romantic, believing that the goal of the internet is to divorce ideas from the physical appearance of individuals who utter them, so that we might judge an idea by the internal logic of that idea rather than automatically accept or dismiss it on the basis of whether or not you like the individual who happens to utter it.

Then again, psuedonymity also creates a protection, and so you see on a lot of anonymous blogs and bulletin boards people saying things to other people behind not only the mask of their identity but also the distance that a keyboard lends over a person to person encounter.

The downside of this is a story from back in March where a 400 pound woman gave birth to a child a few days after finding out she was pregnant.

When a California woman recently gave birth to a healthy baby just two days after learning she was pregnant, the sudden change to her life was challenging enough. What April Branum definitely didn’t need was a deluge of nasty Internet comments.

Postings on message boards made cracks about Branum’s weight (about 400 pounds — one reason she says didn’t realize sooner she was pregnant). They also analyzed her housekeeping ability, based on a photo of her home. And they called her names. “A pig is a pig,” one person wrote. Another suggested that she “go on the show ‘The Biggest Loser.'”

“The thing that bothered me most was, people assumed because I am overweight, I’m going to be a bad mom,” Branum says. “And that is not one little bit true.”

 

Still I think the upside outweighs the downside. The downside can be mitigated through moderators and rules and a basic culture created on a blog. One of the things that moderates my own writings is having to look people in the eye and receive emails and occasionally angry phone calls after I write about them. The same does not hold for the hundreds of people who post comments, usually with either a psuedonym or as “anonymous.”

At times I have thought about required registration, but I always come back to the same problem. Many people have good things to say, accurate things to say, important things that need to be heard but cannot do so because they are afraid. I encounter it all the time when I get a person who comes forward with a horrific story about the police or another situation, but are too afraid to come forward. They are too afraid to press a complaint. They are too afraid to even tell their story. This is a small community still where people either know each other or know someone who does and there is a legitimate fear factor about coming forward and reporting the truth. But sometimes they can say it with their names protected and that makes all the difference. I know a lot of people will view that as illegitimate, but I don’t think it is. I have personally received enough threats to understand people’s fear.

Just some thoughts for today…

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

52 Comments

  1. Rich Rifkin

    “This is a small community still where people either know each other or know someone who does and there is a legitimate fear factor about coming forward and reporting the truth. But sometimes they can say it with their names protected and that makes all the difference. I know a lot of people will view that as illegitimate, but I don’t think it is.”

    Despite the fact that I put my name on my posts for all to see, I don’t have a problem with pseudonimity for most posts on an internet blog. (Though not the case here, on many blogs the pseudonymous handles are very clever and add a richness to the conversation.)

    However, I think it is quite different when the blogger attacks or in some way writes negatively about another person in their community*. That strikes me as cowardice. It’s like a hit-and-run.

    The negative comment may be entirely warranted. The blogger may have all of his/her facts straight. Or it may just be a matter of opinion. But if the blogger does not want his/her own name known or associated with a comment, then don’t rebuke other human beings by name or by inference.

    * I think the key factor is that the other person is someone within the community. I don’t think our friends and neighbors and colleagues ought to be treated as generic public figures.

    If the comment were directed against a truly public figure, such as the president of the United States or a celebrity, being anonymous wouldn’t make much difference. But when the person being attacked lives or works in our community, even if he/she is the mayor or the fire chief or chancellor or some other well known figure, I think it is bad form to castigate such people under the cover of a fake name or under anonymous.

    I say, put yourself in the place of the person being attacked in his/her own hometown — the Golden Rule: Wouldn’t you like to know who is attacking you and have the chance to respond to the person directly, either to apologize for a wrong decision or possibly correct a misperception? Or at least know who it is who dislikes you so?

  2. Rich Rifkin

    “This is a small community still where people either know each other or know someone who does and there is a legitimate fear factor about coming forward and reporting the truth. But sometimes they can say it with their names protected and that makes all the difference. I know a lot of people will view that as illegitimate, but I don’t think it is.”

    Despite the fact that I put my name on my posts for all to see, I don’t have a problem with pseudonimity for most posts on an internet blog. (Though not the case here, on many blogs the pseudonymous handles are very clever and add a richness to the conversation.)

    However, I think it is quite different when the blogger attacks or in some way writes negatively about another person in their community*. That strikes me as cowardice. It’s like a hit-and-run.

    The negative comment may be entirely warranted. The blogger may have all of his/her facts straight. Or it may just be a matter of opinion. But if the blogger does not want his/her own name known or associated with a comment, then don’t rebuke other human beings by name or by inference.

    * I think the key factor is that the other person is someone within the community. I don’t think our friends and neighbors and colleagues ought to be treated as generic public figures.

    If the comment were directed against a truly public figure, such as the president of the United States or a celebrity, being anonymous wouldn’t make much difference. But when the person being attacked lives or works in our community, even if he/she is the mayor or the fire chief or chancellor or some other well known figure, I think it is bad form to castigate such people under the cover of a fake name or under anonymous.

    I say, put yourself in the place of the person being attacked in his/her own hometown — the Golden Rule: Wouldn’t you like to know who is attacking you and have the chance to respond to the person directly, either to apologize for a wrong decision or possibly correct a misperception? Or at least know who it is who dislikes you so?

  3. Rich Rifkin

    “This is a small community still where people either know each other or know someone who does and there is a legitimate fear factor about coming forward and reporting the truth. But sometimes they can say it with their names protected and that makes all the difference. I know a lot of people will view that as illegitimate, but I don’t think it is.”

    Despite the fact that I put my name on my posts for all to see, I don’t have a problem with pseudonimity for most posts on an internet blog. (Though not the case here, on many blogs the pseudonymous handles are very clever and add a richness to the conversation.)

    However, I think it is quite different when the blogger attacks or in some way writes negatively about another person in their community*. That strikes me as cowardice. It’s like a hit-and-run.

    The negative comment may be entirely warranted. The blogger may have all of his/her facts straight. Or it may just be a matter of opinion. But if the blogger does not want his/her own name known or associated with a comment, then don’t rebuke other human beings by name or by inference.

    * I think the key factor is that the other person is someone within the community. I don’t think our friends and neighbors and colleagues ought to be treated as generic public figures.

    If the comment were directed against a truly public figure, such as the president of the United States or a celebrity, being anonymous wouldn’t make much difference. But when the person being attacked lives or works in our community, even if he/she is the mayor or the fire chief or chancellor or some other well known figure, I think it is bad form to castigate such people under the cover of a fake name or under anonymous.

    I say, put yourself in the place of the person being attacked in his/her own hometown — the Golden Rule: Wouldn’t you like to know who is attacking you and have the chance to respond to the person directly, either to apologize for a wrong decision or possibly correct a misperception? Or at least know who it is who dislikes you so?

  4. Rich Rifkin

    “This is a small community still where people either know each other or know someone who does and there is a legitimate fear factor about coming forward and reporting the truth. But sometimes they can say it with their names protected and that makes all the difference. I know a lot of people will view that as illegitimate, but I don’t think it is.”

    Despite the fact that I put my name on my posts for all to see, I don’t have a problem with pseudonimity for most posts on an internet blog. (Though not the case here, on many blogs the pseudonymous handles are very clever and add a richness to the conversation.)

    However, I think it is quite different when the blogger attacks or in some way writes negatively about another person in their community*. That strikes me as cowardice. It’s like a hit-and-run.

    The negative comment may be entirely warranted. The blogger may have all of his/her facts straight. Or it may just be a matter of opinion. But if the blogger does not want his/her own name known or associated with a comment, then don’t rebuke other human beings by name or by inference.

    * I think the key factor is that the other person is someone within the community. I don’t think our friends and neighbors and colleagues ought to be treated as generic public figures.

    If the comment were directed against a truly public figure, such as the president of the United States or a celebrity, being anonymous wouldn’t make much difference. But when the person being attacked lives or works in our community, even if he/she is the mayor or the fire chief or chancellor or some other well known figure, I think it is bad form to castigate such people under the cover of a fake name or under anonymous.

    I say, put yourself in the place of the person being attacked in his/her own hometown — the Golden Rule: Wouldn’t you like to know who is attacking you and have the chance to respond to the person directly, either to apologize for a wrong decision or possibly correct a misperception? Or at least know who it is who dislikes you so?

  5. Richard

    I see this slightly differently.

    Yes, you can be anonymous, but the reality is, if you remain anonymous, the credibility of what you say is going to be questioned to a greater degree

    Rightly or wrongly, you are perceived as more credible when you sign your name to something, but, at least people think that you really believe it, even if your views are highly disputed.

    Hence, I always post under my name (or, where my identity is pretty obvious), and take responsibility for my views, but it is interesting, particularly on the left, especially among anti-globalization activists and anarchists, where the organizing principle is to avoid the artificial creation of leaders by the media, so there, arguably, you might not sign your name to retain your anonymity and preserve a collective identity

    anyway, it is also curious that the whole concept of anonymity emerged from the world of criminal investigations, where people were afraid of retaliation, not sure that it translates over to the Internet as well as some believe, especially where you encounter strange situations where posters are creating fictional identities for themselves, even to the point of changing their gender

    –Richard Estes

  6. Richard

    I see this slightly differently.

    Yes, you can be anonymous, but the reality is, if you remain anonymous, the credibility of what you say is going to be questioned to a greater degree

    Rightly or wrongly, you are perceived as more credible when you sign your name to something, but, at least people think that you really believe it, even if your views are highly disputed.

    Hence, I always post under my name (or, where my identity is pretty obvious), and take responsibility for my views, but it is interesting, particularly on the left, especially among anti-globalization activists and anarchists, where the organizing principle is to avoid the artificial creation of leaders by the media, so there, arguably, you might not sign your name to retain your anonymity and preserve a collective identity

    anyway, it is also curious that the whole concept of anonymity emerged from the world of criminal investigations, where people were afraid of retaliation, not sure that it translates over to the Internet as well as some believe, especially where you encounter strange situations where posters are creating fictional identities for themselves, even to the point of changing their gender

    –Richard Estes

  7. Richard

    I see this slightly differently.

    Yes, you can be anonymous, but the reality is, if you remain anonymous, the credibility of what you say is going to be questioned to a greater degree

    Rightly or wrongly, you are perceived as more credible when you sign your name to something, but, at least people think that you really believe it, even if your views are highly disputed.

    Hence, I always post under my name (or, where my identity is pretty obvious), and take responsibility for my views, but it is interesting, particularly on the left, especially among anti-globalization activists and anarchists, where the organizing principle is to avoid the artificial creation of leaders by the media, so there, arguably, you might not sign your name to retain your anonymity and preserve a collective identity

    anyway, it is also curious that the whole concept of anonymity emerged from the world of criminal investigations, where people were afraid of retaliation, not sure that it translates over to the Internet as well as some believe, especially where you encounter strange situations where posters are creating fictional identities for themselves, even to the point of changing their gender

    –Richard Estes

  8. Richard

    I see this slightly differently.

    Yes, you can be anonymous, but the reality is, if you remain anonymous, the credibility of what you say is going to be questioned to a greater degree

    Rightly or wrongly, you are perceived as more credible when you sign your name to something, but, at least people think that you really believe it, even if your views are highly disputed.

    Hence, I always post under my name (or, where my identity is pretty obvious), and take responsibility for my views, but it is interesting, particularly on the left, especially among anti-globalization activists and anarchists, where the organizing principle is to avoid the artificial creation of leaders by the media, so there, arguably, you might not sign your name to retain your anonymity and preserve a collective identity

    anyway, it is also curious that the whole concept of anonymity emerged from the world of criminal investigations, where people were afraid of retaliation, not sure that it translates over to the Internet as well as some believe, especially where you encounter strange situations where posters are creating fictional identities for themselves, even to the point of changing their gender

    –Richard Estes

  9. 無名 - wu ming

    it is important to remember that pseudonymity is not anonymity. anyone using a consistent handle will develop a reputation in short order, for good or ill, same as they would if they moved into a town. in one sense, keeping a pseudonymous handle after a period of time online might provide more continuity of reputation than were one to switch to their real name.

    i do wish that the flood of “anonymous” folks would pick pseudonymous handles, though, just so i can tell who is speaking at a given time.

    i think the pressure on pseudonymous writers really kicks in when they report on things with some sort of inside access, because there is the assumption – true or false – that the pseudonymous writer is acting as a proxy. even if that is not what is going on, critics can use the pseudonymity as rhetorical cause for suspicion.

    it’s a complicated thing. in one sense, using a pseudonym can keep one’s private life private; given a world where people are stalked, threatened, occasionally harmed, and have been known lose jobs for private political opinions posted online, it’s an understandable precaution for many.

    the downside is that by being pseudonymous, the same stalkers and jerks who would threaten someone in real life often try to out people as a way of silencing them, because of the perception that they’re hiding something.

    i see a big difference between private and public officials. i don’t really buy rifkin’s exemption above for “community” figures, though. a public official, be they a local elected city councilmember or an appointed city commissioner or committeemember, ought to be open for public discussion and criticism in those areas where they impact the public sphere. it is good, IMO, to be free to go as negative as one wills in the context of local politics, as long as the criticism is related to the public sphere, and not irrelevant personal business. even public officials deserve a private life, as long as they keep it separate from public affairs.

    where that places us, however, as private citizens writing amateur stuff in a publically-visible forum, is an interesting question.

  10. 無名 - wu ming

    it is important to remember that pseudonymity is not anonymity. anyone using a consistent handle will develop a reputation in short order, for good or ill, same as they would if they moved into a town. in one sense, keeping a pseudonymous handle after a period of time online might provide more continuity of reputation than were one to switch to their real name.

    i do wish that the flood of “anonymous” folks would pick pseudonymous handles, though, just so i can tell who is speaking at a given time.

    i think the pressure on pseudonymous writers really kicks in when they report on things with some sort of inside access, because there is the assumption – true or false – that the pseudonymous writer is acting as a proxy. even if that is not what is going on, critics can use the pseudonymity as rhetorical cause for suspicion.

    it’s a complicated thing. in one sense, using a pseudonym can keep one’s private life private; given a world where people are stalked, threatened, occasionally harmed, and have been known lose jobs for private political opinions posted online, it’s an understandable precaution for many.

    the downside is that by being pseudonymous, the same stalkers and jerks who would threaten someone in real life often try to out people as a way of silencing them, because of the perception that they’re hiding something.

    i see a big difference between private and public officials. i don’t really buy rifkin’s exemption above for “community” figures, though. a public official, be they a local elected city councilmember or an appointed city commissioner or committeemember, ought to be open for public discussion and criticism in those areas where they impact the public sphere. it is good, IMO, to be free to go as negative as one wills in the context of local politics, as long as the criticism is related to the public sphere, and not irrelevant personal business. even public officials deserve a private life, as long as they keep it separate from public affairs.

    where that places us, however, as private citizens writing amateur stuff in a publically-visible forum, is an interesting question.

  11. 無名 - wu ming

    it is important to remember that pseudonymity is not anonymity. anyone using a consistent handle will develop a reputation in short order, for good or ill, same as they would if they moved into a town. in one sense, keeping a pseudonymous handle after a period of time online might provide more continuity of reputation than were one to switch to their real name.

    i do wish that the flood of “anonymous” folks would pick pseudonymous handles, though, just so i can tell who is speaking at a given time.

    i think the pressure on pseudonymous writers really kicks in when they report on things with some sort of inside access, because there is the assumption – true or false – that the pseudonymous writer is acting as a proxy. even if that is not what is going on, critics can use the pseudonymity as rhetorical cause for suspicion.

    it’s a complicated thing. in one sense, using a pseudonym can keep one’s private life private; given a world where people are stalked, threatened, occasionally harmed, and have been known lose jobs for private political opinions posted online, it’s an understandable precaution for many.

    the downside is that by being pseudonymous, the same stalkers and jerks who would threaten someone in real life often try to out people as a way of silencing them, because of the perception that they’re hiding something.

    i see a big difference between private and public officials. i don’t really buy rifkin’s exemption above for “community” figures, though. a public official, be they a local elected city councilmember or an appointed city commissioner or committeemember, ought to be open for public discussion and criticism in those areas where they impact the public sphere. it is good, IMO, to be free to go as negative as one wills in the context of local politics, as long as the criticism is related to the public sphere, and not irrelevant personal business. even public officials deserve a private life, as long as they keep it separate from public affairs.

    where that places us, however, as private citizens writing amateur stuff in a publically-visible forum, is an interesting question.

  12. 無名 - wu ming

    it is important to remember that pseudonymity is not anonymity. anyone using a consistent handle will develop a reputation in short order, for good or ill, same as they would if they moved into a town. in one sense, keeping a pseudonymous handle after a period of time online might provide more continuity of reputation than were one to switch to their real name.

    i do wish that the flood of “anonymous” folks would pick pseudonymous handles, though, just so i can tell who is speaking at a given time.

    i think the pressure on pseudonymous writers really kicks in when they report on things with some sort of inside access, because there is the assumption – true or false – that the pseudonymous writer is acting as a proxy. even if that is not what is going on, critics can use the pseudonymity as rhetorical cause for suspicion.

    it’s a complicated thing. in one sense, using a pseudonym can keep one’s private life private; given a world where people are stalked, threatened, occasionally harmed, and have been known lose jobs for private political opinions posted online, it’s an understandable precaution for many.

    the downside is that by being pseudonymous, the same stalkers and jerks who would threaten someone in real life often try to out people as a way of silencing them, because of the perception that they’re hiding something.

    i see a big difference between private and public officials. i don’t really buy rifkin’s exemption above for “community” figures, though. a public official, be they a local elected city councilmember or an appointed city commissioner or committeemember, ought to be open for public discussion and criticism in those areas where they impact the public sphere. it is good, IMO, to be free to go as negative as one wills in the context of local politics, as long as the criticism is related to the public sphere, and not irrelevant personal business. even public officials deserve a private life, as long as they keep it separate from public affairs.

    where that places us, however, as private citizens writing amateur stuff in a publically-visible forum, is an interesting question.

  13. proudly anonymous

    I find the opinion postings under named posters no more valid than those from Anonymous and usually less candid.In fact, the named poster’s history and recognized biases colors my reading of it which does not occur under Anonymous postings.

  14. proudly anonymous

    I find the opinion postings under named posters no more valid than those from Anonymous and usually less candid.In fact, the named poster’s history and recognized biases colors my reading of it which does not occur under Anonymous postings.

  15. proudly anonymous

    I find the opinion postings under named posters no more valid than those from Anonymous and usually less candid.In fact, the named poster’s history and recognized biases colors my reading of it which does not occur under Anonymous postings.

  16. proudly anonymous

    I find the opinion postings under named posters no more valid than those from Anonymous and usually less candid.In fact, the named poster’s history and recognized biases colors my reading of it which does not occur under Anonymous postings.

  17. Karl

    Matt Rexroad had something on his blog a while ago on the subject, which I thought was well considered.

    I would just observe that some people aren’t in a position, for professional or other reasons, to be able to comment under their own names, however much they might otherwise want to. I would then tend to agree with Wu Ming, that the best alternative is to just pick an internet pseudonym and always use that, at least for the sake of consistency within the confines of a particular blog. Obviously this is problematic when the discussion has importance outside the context of the blog, i.e. in local or city politics, but it seems like a better alternative to a continuous stream of totally anonymous commentary.

  18. Karl

    Matt Rexroad had something on his blog a while ago on the subject, which I thought was well considered.

    I would just observe that some people aren’t in a position, for professional or other reasons, to be able to comment under their own names, however much they might otherwise want to. I would then tend to agree with Wu Ming, that the best alternative is to just pick an internet pseudonym and always use that, at least for the sake of consistency within the confines of a particular blog. Obviously this is problematic when the discussion has importance outside the context of the blog, i.e. in local or city politics, but it seems like a better alternative to a continuous stream of totally anonymous commentary.

  19. Karl

    Matt Rexroad had something on his blog a while ago on the subject, which I thought was well considered.

    I would just observe that some people aren’t in a position, for professional or other reasons, to be able to comment under their own names, however much they might otherwise want to. I would then tend to agree with Wu Ming, that the best alternative is to just pick an internet pseudonym and always use that, at least for the sake of consistency within the confines of a particular blog. Obviously this is problematic when the discussion has importance outside the context of the blog, i.e. in local or city politics, but it seems like a better alternative to a continuous stream of totally anonymous commentary.

  20. Karl

    Matt Rexroad had something on his blog a while ago on the subject, which I thought was well considered.

    I would just observe that some people aren’t in a position, for professional or other reasons, to be able to comment under their own names, however much they might otherwise want to. I would then tend to agree with Wu Ming, that the best alternative is to just pick an internet pseudonym and always use that, at least for the sake of consistency within the confines of a particular blog. Obviously this is problematic when the discussion has importance outside the context of the blog, i.e. in local or city politics, but it seems like a better alternative to a continuous stream of totally anonymous commentary.

  21. Anonymous Business Owner

    I know that some small business owners have been harassed by some council members for taking a stance on certain issues. Most notably Measure X. So, sometimes people choose to remain anonymous because of the bully politics of the council majority. Afraid? No. Just don’t have time to deal with the BS.

  22. Anonymous Business Owner

    I know that some small business owners have been harassed by some council members for taking a stance on certain issues. Most notably Measure X. So, sometimes people choose to remain anonymous because of the bully politics of the council majority. Afraid? No. Just don’t have time to deal with the BS.

  23. Anonymous Business Owner

    I know that some small business owners have been harassed by some council members for taking a stance on certain issues. Most notably Measure X. So, sometimes people choose to remain anonymous because of the bully politics of the council majority. Afraid? No. Just don’t have time to deal with the BS.

  24. Anonymous Business Owner

    I know that some small business owners have been harassed by some council members for taking a stance on certain issues. Most notably Measure X. So, sometimes people choose to remain anonymous because of the bully politics of the council majority. Afraid? No. Just don’t have time to deal with the BS.

  25. davisite

    The ability to opine anonymously is particularly valuable in a small-town community like Davis where any confrontation makes people especially uncomfortable.

  26. davisite

    The ability to opine anonymously is particularly valuable in a small-town community like Davis where any confrontation makes people especially uncomfortable.

  27. davisite

    The ability to opine anonymously is particularly valuable in a small-town community like Davis where any confrontation makes people especially uncomfortable.

  28. davisite

    The ability to opine anonymously is particularly valuable in a small-town community like Davis where any confrontation makes people especially uncomfortable.

  29. davisite

    “……….where that places us, however, as private citizens writing AMATEUR stuff in a publically-visible forum, is an interesting question.”
    Postings reflect positions that are taken into the voting booth. There are no AMATEUR citizens.

  30. davisite

    “……….where that places us, however, as private citizens writing AMATEUR stuff in a publically-visible forum, is an interesting question.”
    Postings reflect positions that are taken into the voting booth. There are no AMATEUR citizens.

  31. davisite

    “……….where that places us, however, as private citizens writing AMATEUR stuff in a publically-visible forum, is an interesting question.”
    Postings reflect positions that are taken into the voting booth. There are no AMATEUR citizens.

  32. davisite

    “……….where that places us, however, as private citizens writing AMATEUR stuff in a publically-visible forum, is an interesting question.”
    Postings reflect positions that are taken into the voting booth. There are no AMATEUR citizens.

  33. davisite

    Yes.. there are interesting questions that blogging has raised. Should blogger “journalists” have equal access to limited seating at public trials, for example? I understand that there is a proprosal(or already in practice) to make the determinative factor the % of the total income that the “journalist” derives from this activity.

  34. davisite

    Yes.. there are interesting questions that blogging has raised. Should blogger “journalists” have equal access to limited seating at public trials, for example? I understand that there is a proprosal(or already in practice) to make the determinative factor the % of the total income that the “journalist” derives from this activity.

  35. davisite

    Yes.. there are interesting questions that blogging has raised. Should blogger “journalists” have equal access to limited seating at public trials, for example? I understand that there is a proprosal(or already in practice) to make the determinative factor the % of the total income that the “journalist” derives from this activity.

  36. davisite

    Yes.. there are interesting questions that blogging has raised. Should blogger “journalists” have equal access to limited seating at public trials, for example? I understand that there is a proprosal(or already in practice) to make the determinative factor the % of the total income that the “journalist” derives from this activity.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for