Blogger Authenticity (super long, sorry!)
There’s something fascinating about the recent blogger authenticity dramatics. Who would think that a straight man would spend years developing a blog as a gay woman in order to “cover the issues from that perspective”?
One (the Gay Girl in Syria) seems to be a fiction writer, and the other (creator of LezGetReal, a news blog from a lesbian perspective) was a retired guy from the military whose closest friends are a lesbian couple, and he was outraged about how they were treated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
We’ve all known, of course, that the internet has an anonymizing factor. And many of us have known that people can change who they are for minor reasons, like participating in a hookup or romance website, or changing who we are for a bulletin board.
But these are prominent social personas a la Ender’s Game (without the philosophical misdirection). These are people who, more or less, dedicated their time online, even made a second career, out of blogging not just for a community that they cannot innately be a part of, but as if they were. The guy said he was the father of his persona, who was deaf, so he could interpret for her on phone interviews. He sent a copy of an ID, forged or photoshopped. Clearly, effort was spent to build up the persona.
I respect the feelings of betrayal by those who felt like they’d come to know these individuals, He lied about who he is, and lying is a betrayal. I see how it could affect people deeply, on a personal level. And I DO think it was counterproductive, causing suspicion and division amongst the group he was trying to forward, and perhaps making people outside of that group take it less seriously.
But sociologically, does it matter so much today? The creator of LezGetReal, from what I have read, covered issues of the day from the perspective of a lesbian. Other lesbian bloggers have said that the posts were timely and useful. Some have said that they “knew” something wasn’t right and that they were “unusually aggressive”, but how much of that is (deserved, let’s keep in mind) sour grapes after-the-fact? Obviously lesbians have their aggressive contingency, just like straight males (and everyone else), is that stereotyping just to make themselves feel better about being hoodwinked? I don’t care who you are, unless you have a super-secret handshake, you just can’t say for certainty that you’d know if someone was pretending to be someone they’re not.
Ultimately, an article about this asked, is the conclusion that you should trust no one online? I say yes, if what someone says they are is a priority to you, you should stick to people you can verify, like people you know in person, because right now nearly anyone can create an ID to fax, anyone can find or make ‘authentic’ photos, anyone can sit down and fashion a personality, for good or ill, online. Just like that sexy 20-something guy you’ve been chatting up could be a middle-aged man trying to recapture his youth, that bubbly young sex blogger could be an older woman who thinks she will get more hits if she appears to be a hip younger girl.
And a blog pursuing the rights and reactions of women who like other women will, surprise, get more attention when it appears to be written by a woman. It’s not a psychosis, even if it is unethical.
I think we all take for granted that people are exactly who they say they are an awful lot in real life. Reporters report the truthful news, even if they work for a company known to distort and deceive. Salesmen are just there to help you out, even if they’ll make more money by convincing you to buy something with more markup. Political commercials say they represent a grassroots upswell from the common man, when they’re paid for by extremist fringe groups.
At the same time, stepping out of the specific situation, I do believe that people need to spend more time genuinely putting themselves in the shoes of other people. What would it really be like to live, every day, without a home to go to? How does it actually feel to be rejected by the government for protection when someone says, “You’re a fag, I won’t rent to you” or “We don’t give marriage licenses to lezzbozzz like you” or “You can’t see your lover of 40 years on their dying day because we won’t acknowledge your family.”
I would never say that he ‘groks’ being gay – he was probably never harassed about his sexuality in his life, the entire american culture promotes his personal way of life, etc. But, shady method and all, at least this guy here seemed to care about (the issues of) people that weren’t exactly like himself to try and make a difference.
Sticking with the lesbian community just as an example, group authenticity is such a tangle. Are you a lesbian if you were born a man, transition to female in full faith that you are female inside, and are attracted to women? Are you authentically lesbian if you are femme and easily ‘pass’? Are you a lesbian if you only date women, but have sex with both genders? Or if you will have romantic relationships with anyone, but only have sex with women?
Most lesbians I know would say “yes” to each of those with or without some reservation, but there are plenty inside that community that think it is a betrayal and false if you are interested in men (or if you were a man). Similar comparisons can be made for many groups. When I was going to goth clubs, we rejected the kids who loved Marilyn Manson and the rave kids, because they weren’t “authentic” enough for us, but we are not the arbiters of who can identify with our cultural group. We don’t get to “decide” what is and is not steampunk, to pick a niche; we make up our own minds, and everyone else does, too.
I don’t have a conclusion here. This is just a trend we will increasingly have to cope with as people, earnestly or deceptively, choose to be whoever they want to be online.
What bothers me about all this is how MacMasters has actually endangered the very people he was claiming to help:
http://gaymiddleeast.com/news/news%20317.htm
Yeah, I keep wondering if he was essentially using this as a jumping-off point for fiction writing. I am most worried/disturbed by the story of the young female who was detained around the same time as the fictional arrest, which threw some people off track. I hope people who discovered her story as they were following the fake story will continue to pursue it. :\
It sounds like the Syrian government is already using it as a shield, basically declaring it an example of the propoganda of The West, and an example of how the protest movement is a fabrication.
Yeah, I keep wondering if he was essentially using this as a jumping-off point for fiction writing. I am most worried/disturbed by the story of the young female who was detained around the same time as the fictional arrest, which threw some people off track. I hope people who discovered her story as they were following the fake story will continue to pursue it. :\
It sounds like the Syrian government is already using it as a shield, basically declaring it an example of the propoganda of The West, and an example of how the protest movement is a fabrication.
Ugh. As someone working in journalism for seven years, the particulars of his deception are discomfiting. When there are real people out there being assualted by the government, making up descriptions of your own assault seems wrong on a number of levels.
Ugh. As someone working in journalism for seven years, the particulars of his deception are discomfiting. When there are real people out there being assualted by the government, making up descriptions of your own assault seems wrong on a number of levels.
What bothers me about all this is how MacMasters has actually endangered the very people he was claiming to help:
http://gaymiddleeast.com/news/news%20317.htm
I guess it really depends on the situation. Was the deception done for good or bad purposes? Was there money or goods trading hands as a result of it?
If it was done for good purposes and no one got ripped off, then this is just another case of “BAM! Internet strikes again!”
If otherwise, then I call bullshit.
Even if it were done for noble purposes, it’s still pretty complicated, as we’re talking about in the comments above.
Even if it were done for noble purposes, it’s still pretty complicated, as we’re talking about in the comments above.
I guess it really depends on the situation. Was the deception done for good or bad purposes? Was there money or goods trading hands as a result of it?
If it was done for good purposes and no one got ripped off, then this is just another case of “BAM! Internet strikes again!”
If otherwise, then I call bullshit.
I thought everyone already knew that all the hot chicks online are really 40 year old dudes.
It’s one thing to try on a different skin, so to speak. To pretend to be someone or something else. The desire to do so seems to be part of human nature. Plenty of people do that sort of thing within boundaries that make it clear that this is not reality. That includes things like writing fiction, or gaming, or reporting for FOX News.
Attempting to pass as something/someone else in the face to face world is pretty hard and requires a lot of work and in some cases is just not possible. But on the internet it’s really easy. Too easy. And it becomes a problem when someone gets hurt.
I find it really hard to believe that these bloggers really meant to help the communities they claim they wanted to support. What good is lying doing for anyone? In the Damascus case, that blogger was not personally risking anything in his own life, while his blog threw unwanted attention on the people whose lives were and are at risk. In the military case, if he genuinely wanted to call attention to the problems caused by DADT to people he knew and cared about, he should have been either helping the real people get their story out, possibly disguised for their protection, but with their involvement and consent. That or combating the problem in other ways, rather than misrepresenting himself.
Once you’ve been caught in one lie, everything else you’ve said is suspect. Which means that everything those bloggers said that was true about what real people were going through has been thrown into doubt since it was stated by a known liar. Again, undermining the people these bloggers are claiming to support.
Yeah, these things piss me off.
I totally agree with you regarding strategies that they should have used, as well as the problems they are causing others, including the people they were writing for.
However, I don’t at all have a hard time believing that they thought they were doing something good for the community. Plenty of people do not come to the same conclusions about lying, and I definitely believe that they didn’t think through the consequences of their actions once they were revealed. Probably, each of them thought they would never -be- revealed – I know the news blogger was working his way to retiring from the site, and his own editors had no idea.
I don’t think that ‘meaning well’ is a valid excuse, but doing stupid things with good intentions is, like, half of our fiction and the entirety of sitcom television.
I totally agree with you regarding strategies that they should have used, as well as the problems they are causing others, including the people they were writing for.
However, I don’t at all have a hard time believing that they thought they were doing something good for the community. Plenty of people do not come to the same conclusions about lying, and I definitely believe that they didn’t think through the consequences of their actions once they were revealed. Probably, each of them thought they would never -be- revealed – I know the news blogger was working his way to retiring from the site, and his own editors had no idea.
I don’t think that ‘meaning well’ is a valid excuse, but doing stupid things with good intentions is, like, half of our fiction and the entirety of sitcom television.
You cut to the heart of what I think about all this. When you get caught lying, everything else you say or do is suspect. We’ve seen it time and again in politics, Wall Street, and Hollywood. No matter how important your message is, lying to get it across makes your viewpoint a lot less valid.
You cut to the heart of what I think about all this. When you get caught lying, everything else you say or do is suspect. We’ve seen it time and again in politics, Wall Street, and Hollywood. No matter how important your message is, lying to get it across makes your viewpoint a lot less valid.
I thought everyone already knew that all the hot chicks online are really 40 year old dudes.
It’s one thing to try on a different skin, so to speak. To pretend to be someone or something else. The desire to do so seems to be part of human nature. Plenty of people do that sort of thing within boundaries that make it clear that this is not reality. That includes things like writing fiction, or gaming, or reporting for FOX News.
Attempting to pass as something/someone else in the face to face world is pretty hard and requires a lot of work and in some cases is just not possible. But on the internet it’s really easy. Too easy. And it becomes a problem when someone gets hurt.
I find it really hard to believe that these bloggers really meant to help the communities they claim they wanted to support. What good is lying doing for anyone? In the Damascus case, that blogger was not personally risking anything in his own life, while his blog threw unwanted attention on the people whose lives were and are at risk. In the military case, if he genuinely wanted to call attention to the problems caused by DADT to people he knew and cared about, he should have been either helping the real people get their story out, possibly disguised for their protection, but with their involvement and consent. That or combating the problem in other ways, rather than misrepresenting himself.
Once you’ve been caught in one lie, everything else you’ve said is suspect. Which means that everything those bloggers said that was true about what real people were going through has been thrown into doubt since it was stated by a known liar. Again, undermining the people these bloggers are claiming to support.
Yeah, these things piss me off.
Even when reading blogs by verified people I actually know, I have to remind myself that what they post is only a snapshot of who they are.
Especially in that context – we also need to remember that what people -think- they are saying and what you -interpret- them saying may be very, very different, depending on both of your biases and past histories. So many words can have a connotation depending on how you use them that may or may not be intentional.
Especially in that context – we also need to remember that what people -think- they are saying and what you -interpret- them saying may be very, very different, depending on both of your biases and past histories. So many words can have a connotation depending on how you use them that may or may not be intentional.
Even when reading blogs by verified people I actually know, I have to remind myself that what they post is only a snapshot of who they are.
Some of your questions sound as if they’re trying to define how a contextually-specific Turing Test might operate when applied to the blogosphere.
Well, I don’t think that a Turing test is really great at what it’s trying to accomplish, it’s just better than our alternatives. The possibility of causing incredible offense is already there – any time someone says “you’re not really a woman” or “you’re not really gay” or whatever, it has to be hurtful. Justifying who you are to suspicious and judgmental others sounds like a swift move toward quitting blogging entirely.
Well, I don’t think that a Turing test is really great at what it’s trying to accomplish, it’s just better than our alternatives. The possibility of causing incredible offense is already there – any time someone says “you’re not really a woman” or “you’re not really gay” or whatever, it has to be hurtful. Justifying who you are to suspicious and judgmental others sounds like a swift move toward quitting blogging entirely.
Some of your questions sound as if they’re trying to define how a contextually-specific Turing Test might operate when applied to the blogosphere.