None of these are my own words, but all have been said about me in the comments at the bottom of my various opinion pieces online. Admittedly in one I was trying to argue that Hector Sants deserved his knighthood so that may have been fair criticism.
I mention this in light of a recently launched campaign to restrict “anonymous” comments on personal finance websites, which appears to be steadily building support without anybody questioning the true implications of what the campaign is calling for.
First, the background: prompted by some fairly unpleasant bile directed at him via the comments section of a trade website, and some other nastier stuff written falsely in the name of another adviser, Martin Bamford, managing director of Informed Choice, has begun to lobby for the ending of all anonymous comments on online stories.
He has launched an online petition looking to generate support. You are free to add your name to support his cause. Ironically, given the medium Mr Bamford has chosen, you are also free to add a made-up name to support the cause. I haven’t added my name – or anyone else’s – for several reasons.
Just because some abuse the new-found privilege of a ready made audience, that does not mean we should deprive everyone of the platformThe great thing about the development of online publishing is a true democratisation of the media. In the old days, Money Management was a monologue, preached down to readers who were given one page of the mag to voice any dissenting views. There’s an old saying that the secret of successful journalism is to make your readers so angry they write half your paper for you, but the truth was always that readers’ points of view would only be heard if the editor deigned to publish their letter.
The internet on the other hand is a conversation. Today all advisers can make their views known, not just those with the right journalists’ phone numbers.
Just because some abuse the new-found privilege of a ready made audience, that does not mean we should deprive everyone of the platform.
Even if we did choose to, regulating all commenters is a logistical impossibility. FTAdviser can insist people register, link their log-in to a valid email address or a profile on Facebook or any other social media platform, but that will not stop those who are prepared to jump through sufficient hoops from doing so. It is just as easy to set up an email address in a fake name.
Moderation of comments is a clunky process too, consuming man hours and delaying the speed at which debate can develop. It is better to remove any comments that are libelous or offensive – which we do – as soon as they are reported. But if they are simply hurtful, we live with them.
Mr Bamford does a lot to admire. Many of the initiatives he has overseen at Informed Choice show a flair for creative thinking in using a variety of new technologies to market his company to a wider audience. Undoubtedly some don’t work, but the only way to never fail is to never try and his ambition is to be applauded.
However, this ambition has raised his profile and the downside of that is that some people will want to have a pop. A lot of these comments are undoubtedly hurtful, but surely a healthier response would be to wear them as a badge of honour. Opposing football fans only give Luis Suarez such a hard time because he is good enough to worry them.
What is strangest to me is that the calls are only for a regulation of comments in the trade media covering financial services (as if financial services isn’t already singled out for excessive levels of regulation). Why should a different standard apply to us than the whole rest of the internet?
Mr Bamford argues that, because the profession features a close-knit community, there are grounds to treat it as a special case. Because we all know each other and know who the comments are about, negative statements can have a greater impact.
I would argue that the fact everyone knows each other means people are more likely to dismiss the more outlandish insults as the spiteful nonsense that they are.
I see Martin Bamford post videos to YouTube and pictures to Instagram; his book is available on Amazon; he enjoys a high profile on Twitter. All of these give internet users a platform to insult and abuse him without foundation and without having to identify themselves. Also, given that Google is probably the most common way for advisers to come into potential clients’ consciences, those platforms are equally likely to be visible to those who are not part of the community and to whom negative comments will be most damaging.
You may disagree with everything I’ve said. You have the right to express that. You can do so by email, telephone, post or, most simply, by posting a comment underneath this piece.
The last of these options will lend itself to public debate and invite the views of others. And isn’t that fundamentally a good thing? Why should I have this platform to espouse my half thought through prejudices without affording the same luxury to those who disagree with me?