Scott Adams, the creator of the famous Dilbert comic strip, has always had some...problems...dealing with the realities of the modern Internet. Back in the relatively early days of the Net, a certain web comic author included some copies of Dilbert strips with obscenely altered texts in one of his own comics. Adams sent that author a simple note in e-mail that read only: "Do you want to go to jail?"

Later, Adams started making controversial statements in his blog and dealt with the backlash by doing the old delete and run routine when things got too hot. And now, most recently, he got caught on the Metafilter site anonymously white knighting for himself. The heads of the site chastised him publicly over this and claimed that he had violated understood rules of Net forums by doing the anonymously supporting yourself against critics thing.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about it all. Adams comes off as a bit of a goober who has trouble handling criticism, and perhaps the Net in general. Also, his arguments on the Internets sound a bit like: "I'm right, and you are all wrong, cause you are all idots who don't 'get it', and I'm a genius etc.", you know, like how someone would argue if they were a very typical Net newbie. Which is odd coming from someone who is supposedly so hip to the twists of the modern world and geek culture etc. He even tends to fall back on a lame version of the old "I was just trolling." excuse when he gets a particularly large amount of egg on his face after one of the more ill advised posts. He tends to go: "It's my job to be interesting as a writer, which is why I say outlandish things." etc. Um, you aren't known "as a writer" for your blogging to begin with, dude, and everybody knows it. Your job is that of a cartoonist. But anyway, all and all, he is not really winning at the Internet.

But putting that aside for a moment, I wonder what he did that was so wrong? I mean, fans get to attack us artists with all manner of slander, do so anonymously, and outnumber any artist ten to one. Yet when an artist uses the same Internet tools of anonymity, even all by themselves, he or she is told this is unethical? Mmm... It all seems a little convenient.

Yes, one could argue that such problems simply come with the territory of fame and fortune. But these days, you don't have to be full of that fortune stuff to be Internet famous. Some folks just have a name for themselves for making little bits of art for no money, or for posting popular rants, or whatever. Should all those famous yet non-rich and non-powerful people be constantly at the total mercy of the entire Internet without the opportunity to defend themselves using all the same tricky means that the Internet will no doubt use to attack them?

I think it's a reasonable question, and one we may need to ask more often as the Internet generation grows up. When polled on whether or not it was appropriate for people to be publicly wishing death on the underage girl who made that infamous "Friday" music video, most of those polled said it was perfectly ok to shower her with abuse. This is the way the Internet generation thinks, which leads me to wonder how one-sided battles between creators and fans should be allowed to be. Is it truly anything goes? Not in print, not in letters, not on the television, or the radio, where rules about slander and such apply, but just on the Internet, our own special place for no rules about anything ever?

I recall hearing an NPR report in which the experts being asked by reporters about an incident in which a politician sued in an attempt to get past the anonymity of a Net critic said that the politician should use the Internet to fight instead of the courts, suggesting that the proper way to deal with Net attacks was on the Net's own terms. Sounds nice, but what are those terms, exactly? Ones in which known figures are attacked by large bullying groups who have the automatic advantage of anonymity that the attacked person does not have. And when they do try to use anonymity of their own, the same anonymous attackers claim they are being the unethical ones, with backup by admins. Knowing the identity of one's accuser used to be thought of in some circles as a basic right in a democratic society. The Internet has turned that idea on its head as we delve into new territory.

Don't get me wrong, I love anonymity on the Net, cherish free speech, and don't want either to change. And I hate it when fans insist that any criticism of artists must be motivated by jealousy and that everyone should just shut up and never say anything critical. This fandumb had enforced silence for way too long, and it didn't help anyone except for the group's worst miscreants. But the way we have come full circle and the Internet is now constantly hyper-critical does raise some questions for me too.

All that said, I find the WAY that Adams, and others in the media who have been caught doing this in the past, went about using anonymity disturbing, and perhaps revealing. Few of the media personalities or reporters who get caught doing this get caught making reasonable, calm and truly thoughtful posts. Instead, like Adams, they get caught making insulting, self aggrandizing and over the top posts that seem more driven by an eagerness to counterattack against their critics than to use anonymity to make valid points free of the automatic drama and perhaps overabundant attention that would come with being a celebrity poster.

In other words, the people who do the anonymous self defense thing tend to be the kind of people who respond to loud cretins on the Net by allowing themselves to strike back as loud cretins themselves, with the cover of anonymity so as to not have to take responsibility for it under their usual handle. This is not an uncommon reaction among celebrities and reporters who did not grow up on the Net as much as the Internet generation did. They just don't seem to know what to make of the schoolyard style exchanges typical of a Net environment ruled by insane man-children, and respond by freaking out in kind.

In a way, I don't blame them. Only on the Internet do people who don't even know you feel they have a god given right to "call you out" on the crime of being you, and literally demand that you respond and imply that there is something wrong with you, and not with their own screaming selves of course, if you don't. In any other venue, this would be the babbling crazy person who the celebrity quickly walks past after their stage performance on the way to the limo. But on the Internet, where all parties seem weirdly equal and even the most insane rants get more than equal air time, celebs suddenly feel that maybe they do have to respond to the screaming village idiot after all, and start to discover that they too are human enough to start sounding like one themselves as they begin to scream too. The Internet puts us all in positions we would never normally be in.

Still, if they used anonymity to elevate the discussion, or even just get a word in without being auto-attacked by the angry fans they are responding to due to their identity, I would be more understanding about this sort of thing. But no, they just use their anonymous smurf accounts to wallow in the mud with their most crude attackers, who they really shouldn't be caring so much about to begin with. Adams had a tendency to have his avatar go about saying what a "genius" Adams was and other lame and delusional things straight from his id. This is disappointing.

Do they have a right to do it though? I think so. If anonymous can do anything at any time without any rules, then even those with some fame need to be allowed a level playing field that operates on those same terms.

But would I ever do this kind of thing myself? Honestly...while one can't know how one will respond until in that situation, and I have not been randomly attacked by loud cretins on Net forums just yet, I doubt that I would. In any case, I would certainly not use a smurf account to make crude attacks that I would not want to be seen making under my usual handle, like so many of the famous people have been caught doing. That wouldn't be using anonymity for honesty and open communication, it would be using it as cover for cowardly and juvenile behavior, merely lowering yourself to the level of the most base critics.

Anonymity raises ethical concerns for fans and artists alike though. Some of the more, well, "troubled" artists have been caught using smurf accounts to attack their own friends. Others use them to dodge making good on commissions. Obviously, such behavior is just wrong, not to mention creepy.

Do you set ethics related limits on how you use anonymity, or is the only natural way to handle the Net to just go with it and use all the weapons in your arsenal? I don't claim to have the only right answers to this, I am just posting my gut reactions and thinking about the issue out loud.

And Scott Adams, if you feel like contributing something here, please don't feel you need to do so anonymously. You can call us all idiots and declare your genius in person, it's really not a problem. ^_^

Rave