In a recent post I mentioned a forthcoming book by Glenn Loury that contains his classic essay on self-censorship in public discourse, with a new foreword and afterword.
Great piece. I’m too uninformed to suggest sensible American policy in Gaza, but I can’t help but think about how the ‘unnatural’ cover of anonymity plays into this. Adverse inference might in part explain why anonymous opinions have surged—technology makes it easy, and anonymity removes the personal cost of speaking out.
But this might also suggest why controversial anonymous dialogue is so unconvincing—because the participants offer up no reputational collateral. Persuasion from anonymous actors depends largely on the sheer volume of opinions expressed. Conversely, by speaking with the backing of your real identity, you indicate that you’re willing to stake your reputation on your argument, increasing its singular potency.
Great piece. I’m too uninformed to suggest sensible American policy in Gaza, but I can’t help but think about how the ‘unnatural’ cover of anonymity plays into this. Adverse inference might in part explain why anonymous opinions have surged—technology makes it easy, and anonymity removes the personal cost of speaking out.
But this might also suggest why controversial anonymous dialogue is so unconvincing—because the participants offer up no reputational collateral. Persuasion from anonymous actors depends largely on the sheer volume of opinions expressed. Conversely, by speaking with the backing of your real identity, you indicate that you’re willing to stake your reputation on your argument, increasing its singular potency.
Totally agree about the effects of anonymity, and unnatural cover is a great term.