Blogging and character

Alerted by LaughingCow to this: ST (Apr 21), "A blog on your character" by Tan Seow Hon (subscription required). Interesting read. Starts off with the CZ-affair, and using that to launch into a discussion of the practice of blogging and its ethical implications. This bit about the bloggers' screen personae caught my eye:

Blogging as a form of writing seems to be turning into a whole genre in itself. And since human beings are such copycats, one might allow the 'style' on many blogs to take over one's voice. How many of us have been surprised when we read the blog of a friend for the first time and see a completely different side of the person from the one we thought we knew?

In the case of the Northwestern University student, his apology after the incident is telling: 'I guess I was not myself when I wrote those things. I don't use my own persona when I write on my blog. I realise they were in very poor taste and I deeply regret my actions. I am not like that.'

I won't comment on the last bit, but the general point appears true enough. The phenomenon of multiple personae is not totally unique to blogging (or cyberspace in general). Most of us have take on multiple personae at various points of our lives in different social contexts. Think of the differences that are often exemplified in the way we react with our parents, as opposed to our friends, or how we speak in a classroom setting, as opposed to the food court.

The internet, however, does add to those work-a-day possibilities because our choices are apparently less constrained in cyberspace. There are, frankly, only so many ways in which a person may interact respectfully with one's parents or collegues before consequences (e.g., social pressure) set in. But online, one can in principle always choose to adopt one persona rather than another. Our work-a-day personae, on the other hand, are often not chosen per se but structured and partly given by the social roles, positions, and situations we find ourselves in. Those things are seldom simply chosen. We are already embedded in a thousand links not of our own making in the web of society from the day we are born.

[Incidentally and autobiographically, I think--but I am not the best judge of this--my blog persona pretty much overlaps with my work-a-day persona (though somewhat on the didactic and pedantic--i.e., classroom--range of the usual spectrum). Occupational hazard, I suppose.]

But back to the ST article. This other bit is germane given recent events (my emphasis):

What the incident also brings to the forefront is the reality of blogging - that it is not just the private business of the blogger and his fans. Blogging about real persons - individually or as a group - implicates others. Interesting issues are raised when the subject of the blog is someone the blogger is not actually acquainted with.

Who are these subjects? Public figures - and these days, the category has expanded to include teachers and professors - frequently become the subject of blog posts...

Blogging is revealing about the blogger in another way. As there is no personal contact, blogging can encourage uncivil and irresponsible statements - some of which can easily form the subject of defamation suits.

Hiding behind a blog seems to feed cowardice - some bloggers rant behind others' backs. Perhaps they even hope that those they blog about will chance upon these postings because they say things there which they would not dare to confront others with.

In the end, the question each blogger should ask himself is this: What does your blog say about your character?

Excellent question and not without some implications for the issue of another earlier post. What we need is not some brand new 'blogging ethics'; but more awareness that because behind each persona potentially stands a flesh and blood person, the decency that is expected of us in our interactions with people in the real world are and can never be completely set aside.

UPDATE: Somewhat dismayed to read this. [ADD:] It's not even clear if the perceived offending material is by AcidFlask himself, or left as comments by others. That is an important but sometimes overlooked distinction. The question: to what extent are authors of publically accessible blogs that in principle allow anyone to leave comments be held accountable for their readers' comments? goes far beyond "blog ethics" and deserves its own treatment.

UPDATE 2: Redrown considers a hypothetical scenario. His conclusion brings together two distinct strands in this post--the ethical responsibility of the blogger and the extent to which they can be held accountable:

Powerful People (PP) abusing the judiciary is a commonplace occurrence, but that doesn't make it right. But it also serves to warn normal layman bloggers like you and me about the perils of free speech. This may also serve to warn us that as mere mortal bloggers, we are pretty much susceptible once we accidentally step on PP's toes... Maybe we must band together to protect ourselves. Strength in numbers. Besides watching our words, we should stop our zealous infighting and band together against the real threat. For example, if some other bloggers choose to post, say, racist comments, then what we should do is to settle the issue between ourselves. Eg, post a comment or send an email and highlight one's grievances with him, and see the response. An apology and retraction would suffice. There is no need to take the matter to other authorities – and hence out of our hands – we are feeding one of our own to the crocodiles.

I am extremely sympathetic to the last bit (in fact, it is similar to something I said at the end of a previous post). But I am also not hopeful that it will be put into practice by all netizens: it appears to presuppose a class interest for bloggers and netizens in general. If anything, the CZ affair precisely revealed that there is no such class interest. As the question often comes down to: who exactly are the "we"? [ADD: The discussions continues in the comments.]

FURTHER THOUGHT:

He [the King of BROBDINGNAG] laughed at my odd Kind of Arithmetick (as he was pleased to call it) in reckoning the Numbers of our People by a Computation drawn from the several Sects among us in Religion and Politicks. He said, he knew no Reason, why those who entertain Opinions prejudicial to the Publick, should be obliged to change, or should not be obliged to conceal them. And as it was Tyranny in any Government to require the first, so it was Weakness not to enforce the second: For a Man may be allowed to keep poisons in his Closet, but not to vend them about for Cordials. (From Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels, III, vi)

[Technorati: blog ethics]