Healthcare and internet anonymity - a heady mix for a Tuesday

[annwfyn]

Because the Times employs clever people to write their columns they succeed in articulating things that I cannot...

From Michael Gove's column today:

Shield of anonymity blunts blog’s point

I’ve become, over time, an obsessive blog reader. From Iain Dale to Andrew Sullivan, Conservative Home to Alpha Mummy, Comment Central to The Spectator’s Coffee House, any spare time I have in front of the screen is spent admiring the perceptiveness of a gallery of brilliant commentators.

But there is one aspect of the blogosphere with which I am not yet perfectly attuned. The habit that many readers have of commenting on what they’ve just read entirely anonymously. Sometimes you find, after an admittedly controversial post, that a string of commenters have offered their own distinctive, often bilious, take on the argument behind the shield of anonymity. Some of these comments get to the heart of the weakness in the original post. But others can be just random abuse, attacks that seem to carry proportionally less weight for being made anonymously. If a poster wants to attack an individual without having the courage to identify themselves, we are unable to pass appropriate judgment on their own credentials as a critic. Doesn’t that weaken, if not negate, the substance of the critique? In any case, isn’t hurling abuse at someone from behind that anonymous shield a form of moral cowardice itself? How would any of us react to a letter that made a series of trenchant points, but to which the sender had shrunk from adding his signature? I’ll look forward to the responses to this one...

I really, really strongly agree with this. I didn't use to be quite so vehement on the evils of anonymous commenting. In years gone by, I suspect I may even have left a couple of anon comments on the long departed grimjim LJ. Nothing very vitriolic, I think, but I was very scared of Grim, and therefore found it safer to say "I think you're wrong" whilst not attaching a name. This only happened a couple of times, and then IP tracking put a stop to that.

However, over the years, I've gotten more and more intolerant of people who comment on blogs, on columns, or on livejournals and don't leave their names. I think it is cowardly, and more than that, I think it's intrinsically weak. The vile spoof blog that someone (I don't know who, althought I've always wanted to know for sure) put up about the Darbyshires always struck me as being most obnoxious in its anonymity. Someone wanted Leah and Robin to feel hurt, but didn't even have the courage to be honest in their attack. A lot of the Lib Dem bloggers weren't exactly pleasant during that time period - and I've got a long ramble about different forms of subtle bullying which is lurking at the back of my brain - but none of them left me with such a nasty taste in my mouth. Vivienne Raper, Duff Whatisname, and the assorted merry band of bloggers were snide, sarcastic and at times very provocative, but they all posted under their own names. They all took their hits too. One doesn't have to like them at the end of it all, but I never really felt contempt for them. I did feel contempt for the people who were only prepared to attack from behind some big faceless internet, apparently quite happy to let a third party take crap for it (if it was an innocent third party who was blamed - I've never been entirely sure about this).

It was cowardly. It was cheap.

The same goes for the vast majority of anonymous comments, which I believe is why theladiesloos (which is a quite interesting women's only community on LJ) stopped letting its members comment on other people's entries anonymously. There is still a specific account which is used if people wish to post anonymously for very personal problems which they are not ready to be publicly known as having, but they don't let anyone leave comments without adding their name under most circumstances.

Anonymous commenting - 90% of the time it's bad, m'kay. And Michael Gove articulates it so much better than I ever can.

********************************

In other news, can I recommend this blog to everyone. It's the blog of an American woman from Louisiana who has cancer, and has been dealing with the American health system from the point of view of someone who has no health insurance and is relying on that medical care that the state is willing to provide.

I've been reading it with increased horror, and a kind of sickness in my stomach. For those who don't know, my mother died of cancer when I was 22 (I think). She was sick for six years prior to that. At first she was treated on the NHS, and then we went private, due to my family being relatively privileged. However, I did get to see a lot of the NHS during those early years, and I'm honestly shocked and appalled by the story that Liz - the American woman in this blog is telling. I've heard people say that the NHS isn't any good, that it's not reliable, that Americans feel safer with their own system.

But, y'know what? The NHS does provide treatment without a 12 hour wait to see an oncologist. The NHS does not leave people with their credit ratings in shreds, or with horrible debts hanging over them, because they had the misfortune to get sick. The NHS offers back up and help from your GP when you're sick - I lost count of the number of times our local doctor came out to see Mum when she was sick. He came to our house at 2 am on occasion. He dropped by to see Mum when she was at home.

Honestly, I don't even want to think about the state that pierot and I would be in financially or physically if we lived in the states. I suspect that a private healthcare system would not be kind to a man with chronic asthma, re-occuring pneumonia and severe respitory problems.

I know that we Brits tend to be quite sanctimonious on occasion when talking about America, and I try not to be. I do genuinely think America is a fantastic country, that I have many many fond memories of visiting. Lots of stuff the US does get right. But I am really really quite shocked, reading this blog, and hearing about what life is like without healthcare.

Comments

[lilitufire.livejournal.com]

You can still comment anonymously on the ladiesloos posts if you want to, but it goes through the same process as posting anonymously, and the mods have made it clear that any bitchy anonymous comments won't be posted.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Ah...cool. I like that - it works well as a system. Anonymity does tend to bring out the worst in people.

[taimatsu]

Yes, I think the point is for those who want to make a useful comment which is as personally revealing/damaging as something one might put in an anon *post* - not for attacks/bitching.

[lawrencegillies.livejournal.com]

From what I gather the US healthcare system is good if you get injured, horrible if you get sick.

This is probably a massive over-simplification.

You may be interested in Michael Moore's "Sicko" if/when it gets a release over here

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I have mixed feelings about Michael Moore. On one hand, I think he's got a lot of interesting things to say, and I think I agree with a lot of the points he wants to make, but I think the way he gets those points across isn't great. I remember being quite bothered by watching him bully Charlton Heston during Bowling For Columbine. It's not great journalistic integrity to harass an old man.

[lawrencegillies.livejournal.com]

I also have reservations about him.

For one thing, I think his abrasive style often means that he's preaching to the choir, and not really likely to convince people not already of a similar opinion.

However, I also think that sometimes he goes so far the other way because the there is not actually all that much outy on his side, so he really has top try and hammer his point home to get it through.

I agree that Charlton Heston was simply not able to cope with Moore. Having said that Heston is a very vocal and visible front man for the organisation. If he, or the NRA had a PR person (i'm not sure) then they really shouldn't have let the interview happen.

Fahrenheit 9/11 goes even further that Bowling... and I'm minded to call it propaganda rather than documentary, but it is still thought provoking, and causes discussion of the issues, which is all to the good.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

He's *effective*, though. Can you think of any other documentary filmmaker who attracts even a tenth as much attention to the subjects he's covering?

(I'm not a total fan either. Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't great.)

Apparently Sicko's possibly his best yet - and it's apparently very accurate too.

[eladriell.livejournal.com]

Blogging is sick frankly. I use lj to keep in touch with people..thats about it. Throwing things up for the internet voyeurs to analyse and masturbate over aint worth my time. Looking out my window from this computer, I see a lot of halthy, attractive, happy looking people going about their lives...think ill go join 'em. Few of those attributes seem to be represented by the online communities.

Anonymous posting, frankly all intenet communication should be.

Healthcare? We're lucky, and the colonies are rubbish. that'll about do it. America, the fat, angry kid in the corner in the high school of countries. Nae money? nae luck!

And michael moore...well, i suppose liberals need shrill, hysteria-mongering hypocrites just as much as the republican reich does. Stop wasting celuloid and go do some work!


ooh! i feel all tingly now!

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I dunno...I quite like writing as a way of expressing my thoughts. They come out clearly on a computer. If I try and talk, I tend to get jumbled up and incoherant.

I used to write stuff down in paper diary form, or letters to myself to be kept for later - I found a letter I wrote to myself about my life from 1998 a while ago. Twas very odd! Now I write things down and store them online where some folks can see them. Doesn't stop me from gardening, or going to the cinema, or going out for food, or doing any of the other things I enjoy.

[eladriell.livejournal.com]

Although it does become the way you arrange these things. The hub.

Online communication erodes the base level of privacy, respect and eloquence in people. When was the last time you recieved a letter? An actual letter, not just something through the post.

Besides, put yerself online, you cannot complain when people judge you, however harshly. You chose to stand in the spotlight.

You're allowed a telegram, maybe once a month. If you're good.