At the outset, the issue of anonymous opinions on the Internet must be clarified. To speak online, a user chooses a pseudonym and expresses their opinion under it. In this way, they assess the author’s text or idea, and the quality of an article, column or report. That is the law of the Internet. We are not debating that.
What is interesting, however, is the anonymous personal attacks appearing on local portals. They are not intended to express one’s opinion, but to anonymously spread a bad opinion about a particular person or the work they do.
The Internet is a free medium. It is a space in which we are becoming increasingly adept. However, it should not be demonized, nor should we neglect learning to control it. An anonymous attack is merely a cowardly anonymous person in written form. Ethically, there is no difference. The problem begins only when we start dancing to the tune played by the anonymous user.
Last week, a heated discussion about the competence of Dariusz Kwaśniewski from the Starosty’s Office could be followed on two portals. It began with an arrogant anonymous post by someone using the ironic nickname “hi,hi”:
so what exactly has Mr. D. Kwaśniewski, the specialist in EU “funds,” obtained so far? Somehow, we really haven’t heard about the results of his work—let him show off! And is he supposedly going to be PO’s candidate for president? Unless, of course, he can defend himself here on this forum. Regards
After just two more anonymous accusations, Mr. Kwaśniewski responded and posted his statement. He made serious mistakes in this fight with a coward. He began a discussion with him, signing it with his own name and taking the smearers seriously. He also revealed, to his horror, that he was not the only one affected by these provocations. In fact, his acquaintances had raised the alarm. In other words, a larger group of people had been affected by the anonymous post.
What did Kwaśniewski gain from his sincere post? A dozen or so more anonymous posts asking how much he earns, questioning his competence and the purpose of his work, suggesting that he wastes public money, and so on and so forth.
Mr. Kwaśniewski replied again. He wrote about his work reliably, clearly and directly. Did this have any effect? A few short posts. One of them read: “You are not clever enough to defeat dozens of interlocutors.”.
In one of his posts, Kwaśniewski invited them to meet face to face. That was a brilliant move, allowing him to uncover the intentions of the anonymous smearers. The meeting took place. How many of the “dozens of interlocutors” attended? One person—and not even the most fervent opponent. Why did the crowd that Kwaśniewski had probably expected after the “storm” on the Internet not turn up? Were public money, funds obtained from the European Union and their results not actually of enough interest to anyone to discuss them openly? Were the “interlocutors” satisfied with the answers on the portals? No, because they continued asking questions even after they had been invited to the meeting.
Why did all those interested people stay at home? Did they lose their nerve? Did they never intend to have a serious conversation? Did they only want to anonymously pour a bucket of filth over a potential candidate for president or a disliked colleague, and then calmly conduct a “clean campaign” and smile together over a beer?
This is not a defense of Dariusz Kwaśniewski. Nor is it a protest against anonymity on the Internet. It is also not an expression of the naive hope that a phenomenon such as anonymous defamation can be stopped in any way.
Just like people in real life, people online, hiding behind their nicknames, have different characters and intentions, and will use the possibilities offered by the Internet for different purposes. It depends on us how we respond to what appears on the Internet, how we assess it and, most importantly, whether we begin learning to separate the wheat from the chaff. If until now we have been deluding ourselves that everyone accepts us simply because no one has told us to our face that they dislike us, the Internet effectively destroys that illusion. An anonymous post allows various people to do what would be unacceptable in real life, so as not to be judged negatively and to preserve the appearance of a respectable person.
I suggest that, while accepting the Internet and its anonymity as they are, we begin as soon as possible to learn to read it with understanding. Analyze criticism and opinions that are valuable to us, and crumple up cowardly anonymous posts and throw them in the bin. Ask for advice and constructive criticism from specialists known by name, rather than from anonymous cowards pretending to be them.
Grażyna Hanaf