Anonymous Blogs and Gossip

[NaphtaliPress]

The PuritanBoard has the following rule regarding Gossip and Hearsay.
"Forum Rules and Etiquette
….4. Posting Information found on other Web Sites
……. Gossip and hearsay is prohibited. This includes repeating unsubstantiated allegations that abound on the internet."

This has not really been a problem on the board except on rare occasions, and I don't think PB needs any new rules; but it seems to me that posting and repeating information by an anonymous source about an injustice, or some scandalous allegation if it doesn't clearly breach this rule, is fuzzy enough to be at least discouraged. Should we not simply "walk away" and leave matters in God's hands if we cannot pursue a matter of injustice or scandal biblically? In such instances, how are anonymous blogs and reports any different than going to the backyard gossip fence? Is there any biblical precedence for anonymous reports, even if apparently based in fact, serving justice or even being just in such matters? Should anonymous information be viewed as unsubstantiated automatically until other appropriate sources confirm the information? Thoughts?

 

[VictorBravo]

There is a reason for the rules of evidence in courts. It is so the fact finder may evaluate the trustworthiness of the assertions made and to prevent prejudice (literally prejudging without having all the facts).

An anonymous blog may be OK if the assertions are referenced according to some reliable witness. Links to reputable sites (that are not anonymous), footnotes to articles, etc, help establish reliability. But there can still be a malice problem. I think one should always be cautious about getting info from an anonymous blog, even with references, because it is so easy to twist what the references say. Some sites do reference legitimate sources but compile them in such a way as to put the subject in a false or bad light. There is a line between pursuing a legitimate agenda and being malicious. I think most of us can discern it even if it is hard to draw the line. Something to be careful of. And something not limited just to blogs, but to everything we read.

But lacking references, they really are gossip. Many of the anonymous blogs claim personal knowledge for their assertions. Those types are the most dangerous and useless because they lack any sort of verifiability yet are banking on so called inside information. As enticing as the content may be, it is never more than gossip. Probably best to completely disregard them.

 

[Gryphonette]

For what it's worth, I don't care for anonymous "nemesis" blogs.

The PuritanBoard has the following rule regarding Gossip and Hearsay.
"Forum Rules and Etiquette
….4. Posting Information found on other Web Sites
……. Gossip and hearsay is prohibited. This includes repeating unsubstantiated allegations that abound on the internet."

This has not really been a problem on the board except on rare occasions, and I don't think PB needs any new rules; but it seems to me that posting and repeating information by an anonymous source about an injustice, or some scandalous allegation if it doesn't clearly breach this rule, is fuzzy enough to be at least discouraged. Should we not simply "walk away" and leave matters in God's hands if we cannot pursue a matter of injustice or scandal biblically? In such instances, how are anonymous blogs and reports any different than going to the backyard gossip fence? Is there any biblical precedence for anonymous reports, even if apparently based in fact, serving justice or even being just in such matters? Should anonymous information be viewed as unsubstantiated automatically until other appropriate sources confirm the information? Thoughts?

I don't see how they're in keeping with the LORD's "Let your yes be yes", etc. Is a spirit of boldness exemplified by accusations by a source that insists upon being anonymous?

Surely not. Yet that's the rationale most frequently given for a website maintaining anonymity. If the target knows who is accusing him, retribution will be swift and severe.

It seems to me if the LORD has designated a person to act as nemesis for someone, for illustrative purposes let's say Rick Warren (what? who'd you think I was gonna say? ), one of these situations will apply:

First, in all instances the accuser will have first-hand, personal knowledge of the misdeeds of the targeted person. This should be a given.

That said, here are two possible scenarios:

1. The would-be accuser will be someone who cannot be harmed by the target, either because the shoe is on the other foot (let's face it, if Bill Gates wanted to make Rick Warren's life difficult, he'd likely be successful), or because he or she is not within Warren's orbit.
   
2. The would-be accuser is, in fact, likely to be harmed by Warren, but the Holy Spirit provides courage to face whatever comes.

If either the temporal circumstances or courage are missing, it can be reasonably assumed the would-be accuser is not the LORD's designated nemesis.

 

[DMcFadden]

Unfortunately, one can be completely "accurate" without telling the truth.

 

[Kevin]

Unfortunately, one can be completely "accurate" without telling the truth.

Good point!

 

[LadyFlynt]

I'm going to take a stab at this. I went to my blog this morning and discovered a post of mine had been made public when it was initially privatized and password protected. The reason was, the post was never intended for public view. Apparently WP glitched when I went in to place an edit and published it publicly. I fixed it and it is unviewable by the public again. Many people have private blogs or privatized portions of their blogs for their own reasons. I occasionally write to get things out. It was placed there for my own personal reasons, not for gossip or to share. If I had wished the other, it would not have read Protected: (WP places that there when something has been privatized) and would have included names and websites. I also would have no reason to try to be "anonymous" about the situation when it had been dealt with quite publicly here already, with apologies publicly made to the actual offended person.

I also do not announce my name and residence to the world at large on my blog for the same reasons that most women don't. Those that know me do know that it is my blog.


If the reason for this thread isn't because of my post, then either way, thank you...it caused me to go double check the settings on my blog. If it was, then this is my explanation and you have my apologies for not knowing that an edit would cause it to change settings.


As far as the current issues on the board...walking away was my intent and why after two days of explaining myself, have quit doing so.

 

[Gryphonette]

I'm thinking we're not talking about the same thing. What I was addressing were what's often referred to as anonymous "attack" sites, wherein someone makes charges against a (usually) well-known person.

Heaven knows there's not a thing in the world wrong - at least to my mind - with private blogs, discussion boards, etc.

The problem is with anonymous people setting up public sites making public charges.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I'm thinking we're not talking about the same thing. What I was addressing were what's often referred to as anonymous "attack" sites, wherein someone makes charges against a (usually) well-known person.

Heaven knows there's not a thing in the world wrong - at least to my mind - with private blogs, discussion boards, etc.

The problem is with anonymous people setting up public sites making public charges.

Thank you, Anne. The latter I take issue with as well and didn't take your post personally.

Unfortunately, the timing is that I did write something (nothing different than was already stated, just more in-depth) on my blog...privatized, simply as a place to get it out for myself. Due to something stated in the original post and finding that the post was viewable while not logged in, I have to take into consideration that it is a possibility.


I know that I did not have to admit this publicly, but I have chosen to do so for various reasons.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

While I had certain examples in mind, I don't have any idea what your particular situation was Colleen, so I can say positively that your blog and the private/public/private again post was not in view. To everyone, there was no intent to direct this specifically at anyone but to discuss the subject in general, even though specific examples sparked this thread.

 

[LadyFlynt]

While I had certain examples in mind, I don't have any idea what your particular situation was Colleen, so I can say positively that your blog and the private/public/private again post was not in view. To everyone, there was no intent to direct this specifically at anyone but to discuss the subject in general, even though specific examples sparked this thread.

Whew! Thank you! LOL!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This is particularly posted in light of other bloggers. These anonymous bloggers are supposed defenders of the faith and who seem to have a need to warn us about dirt on other Christian organizations, and personalities. A recent anonymous blog is attempting to expose Doug Wilson concerning some strange activity that is not necessarily theological in scope. We have enough reason to be cautious about Doug Wilson because of his Federal Vision tendencies. We don't need to go outside of the theological arena to criticise Doug Wilson as this blogger has done.

In the last few years some supposed believers have used blogs to scandalize good and solid organizations by bringing to light supposed shady workings in these ministers and ministries. And later light has revealed the truth that these men did nothing wrong and the accusations were truly false. Doug Phillip's ministry is one that was under this kind of attack.

So let's be careful what we are listening to and what we are possibly propagating.