Confessions of a Faceless Man
Jim Banks is a well respected member of the Australian surf community. A successful competitor in the early 80's Jim sacrificed a pro career to chase perfect waves in Indonesia and North-west WA. Not as a paid free surfer either, that gig didn't exist back then.
Given the choice between money and waves Jim chose the latter. And the return on his decision was stretches of shaping servitude, countless perfect barrels, and admiration among his peers.
Last year he turned his Indonesian knowledge into a business venture running the Indo Odyssey - a surf charter that traversed the length of the Indonesian archipelago. Customers paid for individual legs lasting one or two weeks.
Despite his standing as a committed surfer Jim's incarnation as an Indo travel guide seems to have ruffled a few feathers. Last week on the Swellnet forums a series of anonymous posts were made accusing Jim of dubious business practices. I contacted Jim to inform him of the accusations and have him give an explantion if one was required.
Jim immediately replied, repudiating each of the allegations. His defence was sound. The person making the allegations was then asked to identify who they were, or even which leg of the Indo Odyssey they were on. They conspicuously went silent. Jim, it seemed, was a victim of online character assasination; an attempt to tarnish his name while the accuser was protected by their anonymity.
It's certainly not the first time such tactics have been used on the internet and it definetely won't be the last. The design of many web 2.0 sites, where users can contribute and comment anonymously, aides the problem and most internet users seem resigned to it.
Jaron Lanier is not amongst them. Lanier is the fellow who coined the term 'virtual reality'. He is a computer scientist, Scholar at Large for Microsoft Corporation and a critic of anonymous internet use. Last year he wrote a book 'You Are Not A Gadget: A Manifesto' applying his penchant for forward-thinking to the deleterious effects of internet use.
He draws some long bows yet his record shows him to be a good shot.
Among his targets are the reduction of online self-expression (due to homogenous sites such as Facebook), devaluing of individuals and the endless rehashing of past culture. Lanier however, reserves special ire for online fraud and internet trolling, both products of what he calls 'transient anonymity'. Transient anonymity is the abilty to instantly join a site, register a username and partake in abuse without any repercussions.
Lanier advocates strongly for accountable commenting. The only situation where you should comment anonymously, he says, is on the occasion that your life is in danger. 'To have a substantial online exchange you need to be fully present,' Lanier says. 'That is why facing your accuser is a fundamental right of the accused'.
On his criticism of transient anonymity, Lanier is not without his own critics who accuse him of censorship. Free speech is paramount, so their argument goes, and anonymous abuse is the unfortunate byproduct of a free online world.
It's highly unlikely that the people who abuse their online anonymity would have such lofty, principled thoughts. Most just want to stir trouble or, in cases such as Jim's, undermine a persons reputation.
Despite the platitudes of the free speech proponents it appears they are losing the battles. On January 1st California passed it's first online impersonation law – SB 1411. The law covers everything from identity theft to cyber harassment to making false online claims.
There is a wariness about how the new law will be applied – where do irony and satire fit in? - but it's been welcomed by many. It's placing 'real world' laws such as defamation, fraud and harassment into the online world. Those who participate in online deception should now think again before publishing comments.
Although the law only applies in California it's a sign that the tenuous free speech argument is losing ground and the culture of accepting anonymous online abuse is changing. The internet has proven itself to be the most vital arena for open, public debate but if you wish to have your claims taken seriously then come out from behind the covers.
Comments
Plenty of food for thought here Stu.
Takes a lot more courage to sack up and write under your real name.
Unless Forums mandate real names though I can't see the sich changing much.
Maybe Steve, but in the time I've been using internet forums (5 years) there's been a noticeable change in attitude. People now know how to handle trolls better and all out abuse wars seem to happen less. It could be due to a change in demographics - more older people getting online perhaps? - but the result is less anonymous abuse.
Of course it still happens, but the fact that the culture has already changed leads me to believe that it could change further.
BTW, I thought a good example of how it should be done was when you joined the Realsurf forums under your name, and then began to get stuck in (as you are want to do).
Ha...nah, not necessarily. Only when wanting to be taken seriously. Impersonating other people, however, is never OK.
Absolutely.. I really hate these faceless internet warriors...
One problem is : in this Google age of constant internet surveilance I, and other people, have become wary of signing to anything on the Internet using a real name.
And I'm not sure the Scholar for the Microsoft Corp is exactly an impartial witness in this matter.
I have no problem with anonymity on forums and chat rooms but there needs to be better tools for administrators of these sites to trace the users when they do break the law. Currently most IP addresses are logged but because they are dynamically handed out these days and not static (ie. you get one and only ever use that one) you can trace it back to the ISP but then you need to see their logs to identify the subscriber.
All of this takes court orders or subpoenas and takes time and money.
What I advocate is users being allowed to maintain their anonymity if they choose but all sites (forums, chat sites, social media etcetera) require an identity token to be passed along with the IP address for logging. So the site protects their anonymity but if they break the law then they can be traced easily and prosecuted by authorities and permanently banned by the site (if they choose after breaching their terms and conditions of use).
Defamation and fraud laws cover most of the bad shite that occurs on the internet (I guess stalking and child porn as well if you want to get a lot darker). The problem has always been tracing the individuals with specific legislation to add this identity logging requirement it should close up the holes without any reduction of free speech, which in Aus is not constitutionally guaranteed, although our High Court have made some judicial innovations through case rulings which grant us some freedoms.
Free speech though, is like physical freedom, my freedom to do what I want ends at the point where I strike you and do you harm or break any other laws. So I can say what I want until I defraud or defame.
I can't believe that I've read this article - I never usually follow your facebook links, but I hate the faceless man mentality on forums (I think Fantasy Surfer started this hatred with prepubescant heroes ruining what used to be a favourite site).
I will however let you know that I have an article written by one of Jims ex crew members that slams the shit out of his operations. They tried to get it into the surf media, but it happened to co-incide with a natural disaster and the unfortunate death of the legendary AI. Combine this with the god-like status of Jim Banks in the surf media, and surprisingly it never made an appearance anywhere.
I've never met Jim, have no grudge against him, but you can be sure as hell I will NEVER set foot on one of his "dead man's" boats.
Want a copy swellnet? I've talked to the person directly involved with Jim's operations, and they're more than keen for this to see the light of day. I'm not putting up personal details on here (except my name) I'm sure you can track my e-mail address through my registration if you want to see the story.
Regards,
Daryl Boggs
(yes, it's a real name, and yes I've heard it all before)
I don't see a problem
peter bowes
Food for thought indeed, especially amongst the online surfing community, which I've found to be worse than most for keyboard warriors and trolls.
As mentioned though, it opens a whole can of worms in regard to freedom of speech and privacy...
I'm a strong advocate for securing freedom of speech, because, while you can address accusations with the facts (admittedly sometimes the fall-out has a long half-life), the loss of free speech can release a corrupted dictatorship for the rest of our lives.
Anonymous accusations are like STDs, they can be very difficult to get rid of completely and do a lot of lasting damage; but free speech is the antibiotic that cures them.
I Didn't quite get wha tthis meant:
his targets are the reduction of online self-expression (due to homogenous sites such as Facebook)
altho I agree generally that it's a weak excuse for big-manship, except when there are valid safety reasons for nndisclosing your identity.
It makes forums a minefield in some discussions,
combined with the inherent risk of not making yourself understood because of the medium, hehe example being sarcasm.
Throw in some real nastiness and it blows up so you can't clearly understand what's up.
Darned new level of interactedness :)
Rasda,
His point about 'the reduction of online self expression' comes from the increasing prevalence of sites, such as Facebook, that limit the opportunity for users to present themselves. If your online presence is a manifestation of who you are - and I believe it is - sites such as FB, with fixed, tight parameters make everyone seem similar.
Choose your personality type from a drop down menu. Tell us what college you went to. State how you are feeling in 120 characters. It is efficient, fast and limiting.
Keep in mind that the author has witnessed the conception, birth and growth of the internet and was awed by its potential. Humans would achieve higher planes of consciousness, went the mantra.
Now we read dumbed-down news articles and post inane comments on Facebook.
And check the surf forecasts of course.
He he..
I remember hearing about Andy Iron's issues a few years back and was amazed some of his behaviour wasn't reported earlier. Probably could have saved his life.
There were tales of Andy being removed from a major surf industry dinner/party where he tweaked out.
In Jim Bank's case, who knows? Someone does and they should put their name to any allegations. Jim obviously wasn't backwards in commenting, which is to his credit.
Agreed, 'parts' of the surf industry is notorious for cover ups etc. Law unto themselves apparently.
Let the circus roll on!
The forums on this site are full of "faceless men" attacking and denigrating other members,
the current topic on "banning surf comps" is the most recent example. I have read topics where users have been identified by there real name and had there reputation attacked (see - discretion involving a gondela"), and yet there seems to be no attempt at moderation on any of these topics. The administators of this site seem quite happy to allow this to go unchecked. Why? Is it because the higher the traffic volume the more attractive this site is too advertisers and so the higher the revenue?
And yet the moment someone who provides content, and advertise's on this site is attacked in a similar manner, it becomes an issue, and you jump too his defence- why is that? Is it because jim is a better surfer than us mere mortals? ,or is it because jim is a mate?, or because jim provide's content?.
It seems there is a double standard at work. Despite the fact that four people (including Jim) mention an incident with an employee receiving burns, you don't seem to have any inclination to ask what seem like obvious questions- for example, Jim- if you were as distressed as you say, did you abandon the charter and do everything possible to get your employee to medical care asap? - instead you endorse his defence as "sound". I've lost count of the articles written I've read that quote "an anonymous source"- corrupt governments have been brought to account by "faceless men" (remember nixon, watergate and "deep throat- possibly the best name ever for a "faceless man"). It seems to me anonymity is a way for the powerless to hold people in positions of power account.
Lets face it how many recreational surfers are going to put there word up against a "legend" like jim's in a public forum?
I suspect that there is a reason that many surfers believe that the surf media are dictated to by the advertisers.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance...said the tagline to a B-Grade sci-fi flick. Yet as terrible as the movie was that line is true. If user groups don't remain vigilant along the way then authority (legitimate or not) always comes down with a heavy hand. The result is a loss of freedom to everyone.
Therefore the onus is upon everyone to act with conscience when small transgressions happen. This applies online as much as other social environments, such as in the surf.
If the Cronulla surfers & boogie boarders had kept the Shark Island crowd in check then there wouldn't have been the heavy-handed behaviour at Ours. Same goes for many other breaks such as Pipe (Wolfpak and J-Bay (JBU). A laissez-faire attitude by onlookers leads to extreme measures. To that end, everyone who doesn't speak up is culpable.
If well-meaning folk stay quiet then they will have to deal with the final outcome which is always violent boot boys. Some wear badges, some don't.