David Weinberger on Transparency and Opaqueness

David Weinberger, one of the deepest thinkers I know, has guest posted a piece about Transparency and Opaqueness at Strumpette.

The recent brouhaha between Jeff Jarvis and Strumpette's anonymous band of bloggers is perhaps the proximate cause of David's post, which starts off by reciting the now conventional wisdom about the purported benefits of widespread transparency. He makes the logical argument that while transparency sounds like fairness, it isn't. It's more like being thin, or taking vitamins. It's good, but not in all cases, and not when carried to extremes.

Nevertheless, transparency is generally a good thing. In fact, it's what the philosophers call a prima facie good: You don't need a justification to be transparent, but you do to be not transparent.

And then, the argument for opaqueness (anonymity):

So, all hail transparency... except...

...Except it's important that we preserve some shadows. Opaqueness in the form of anonymity protects whistleblowers and dissidents, women being beaten by their husbands, girls looking for abortion advice, people working through feelings of shame about who they are, and more. Anonymity and pseudonymity allow people to participate on the Web who perhaps aren't as self-confident as the loudest voices we hear there. It's even been known to enable snarky bloggers to comment archly on their industry, even if sometimes they play too rough.

Likewise, some meetings should be held behind closed doors. Privacy can be liberating. There are some things we're not entitled to know and some activities are better with the lights off.

Sure, there are abusers, but personal anonymity is the default in the real world -- if you live in a large town, not only don't you know everyone you see, but you're not allowed randomly to demand ID from them -- and it ought to be the default on line. The top-down demand for strong digital ID, which sounds good on paper, is likely to flip the default to the peril of political freedom, the growth of new social forms, and the liberating sense of personal play. Transparency is a prima facie good for institutions, but we individuals are more complex than that.

So, the mood of transparency sweeping through business is healthy and important. Unlike fairness, transparency is not a good in itself. We need to use it with our eyes wide open.

David may seem to be siding with the bad guys, but he is not taking sides in the specifics of the battle between The Strumpettes and the various PR and Media illuminati they seek to dethrone. He is simply making the case for a social good: providing a bolthole for those that want to speak freely in public but who may face retribution -- such as losing their livelihoods, or being threatened or actually harmed by others -- for saying what they think.

I have to come down on David's side -- if it is a side, at all -- and stand up for anyone's right to howl at the moon, shout that the emperor has no clothes, or even to advocate dangerous ideas that I do not agree with.

The Internet is a brightly lit place, but we need to remember that the brightest lights seem to create the darkest shadows. It's not the people lurking in the shadows that make them seem dark, however: it's the power of the light. And like all power, even light can be destructive if applied in the wrong way.

[pointer form Britton Manasco]

tags: david+weinberger, strumpette, the+strumpettes, transparency, opaqueness, anonymity, blogging

Comments

[Dennis Howlett]

I was surprised David did this. Strumpette started as a great idea but whomever is behind it seems to go off on personal attacks that stoop to gutter level. Sure, poke at big media, PR and the rest but many a time, Strumpette has made statements that are not only untrue but vile. Would I want to be associated with that brand? No way.

[Amanda Chapel]

Dennis,

We do not take personal shots; we certainly do not stoop. We go after issues. What you are likely mischaracterizing is that we happen to care less about collateral damage. That's all. For instance, if Neville Hobson, Shel Holtz, et al. have built their lives around hooey, humbug, twaddle and bunkum... well that's their problem.

With regard to your association with the Strumpette brand, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time claiming to disassociate yourself. Your first goodbye was sufficient.

Frankly, as you are an accountant by trade, wasn't ever quite clear what your connection to PR was in the first place. It’s kinda like the guy who snuck into the show and disses the band. First, so who asked ya? And second, what makes you think you're entitled to a refund?

Be well Dennis.

Regards,

- Amanda

[Amanda Chapel]

Dennis,

We do not take personal shots; we certainly do not stoop. We go after issues. What you are likely mischaracterizing is that we happen to care less about collateral damage. That's all. For instance, if Neville Hobson, Shel Holtz, et al. have built their lives around hooey, humbug, twaddle and bunkum... well that's their problem.

With regard to your association with the Strumpette brand, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time claiming to disassociate yourself. Your first goodbye was sufficient.

Frankly, as you are an accountant by trade, wasn't ever quite clear what your connection to PR was in the first place. It’s kinda like the guy who snuck into the show and disses the band. First, so who asked ya? And second, what makes you think you're entitled to a refund?

Be well Dennis.

Regards,

- Amanda

[Wayne]

Stowe, well said.