Read on Twitter
Interesting discussion raised on the presence of anonymous accounts in the twitter debate, and arguing that only those "verified" by twitter can be guaranteed upon.
Let's unpack it:
1/
Let's unpack it:
1/
1. There are many reasons why someone would choose to be anon. Privacy concerns, the toxicity of social media, being vulnerable in a workplace.
As much as it shouldn't be so, some people are not in a position where they can speak freely, they do not have that privilege.
2/
As much as it shouldn't be so, some people are not in a position where they can speak freely, they do not have that privilege.
2/
The idea that if someone is anon, their ideas should be counted less, or ignored is flawed. Whilst it can be difficult to establish someone's credentials, being anon also allows people to speak more freely. And as discussed- it is the only way that some can contribute.
3/
3/
Being anon also discourages from "brand building", very few people who are anon are doing so for their ego, or to sell books or get media appearances. The vested interest may be less.
Now, on to verification:
4/
Now, on to verification:
4/
2. It is very hard for certain groups (esp non US/UK) to be verified. Aside from that, many scientists on twitter just aren't verified. I suppose this could mean that their account is a fabrication, but to believe this is regularly the case, arguably lapses into paranoia
5/
5/
Moreover, verification does not guarantee truth. We have seen time & time again "blue ticks" who have been verified as someone with skills in one area posting alarmist & inflammatory content in another.
6/
6/
All verification means is that you're the person you say you are. It doesn't mean that you automatically speak from a place of expertise or knowledge, though sometimes it is seen- wrongly- as a proxy for that
Ultimately, we should judge people on the arguments they're making
7/
Ultimately, we should judge people on the arguments they're making
7/
Whether those arguments are coming from a "verified" account with 500K followers or from an anonymous marten, the arguments should be judged for what they are.
Arguing against anon accounts & for verification is a form of credentialism. It is also intellectually lazy.
8/
Arguing against anon accounts & for verification is a form of credentialism. It is also intellectually lazy.
8/
We all have the capacity to be wrong, or right, & to speak within or outside of our areas of expertise, regardless of how we present ourselves on twitter.
But what do I know? I'm just a zebra.
9/
But what do I know? I'm just a zebra.
9/
