Joi Ito outs himself in a soul-searching piece on his seeming willigness to turn up or down his radicalism on various topics because his words (on in this case, video) might show up on the Internet:

[from What would Gandhi do?]

I felt a sudden pain. I realized that I was compromising and in fact evening softening my words assuming that the video of my presentation might end up on the Internet and that I would have to defend any hardline positions I took. I remember watching the movie about Gandhi (Irony alert. It was a Hollywood movie.) and thinking about the power of sticking to your principles and how this purity can move nations without violence or compromise and questioning myself and my methods.

I have always viewed my role as a sort of ambassador or bridge between groups to help provide a dialog. In talks to telephone operators or other somewhat old-school companies, I talk about their "challenges". To left-wing artists, I talk about the tyranny of the monopolies. The irony is that the recent trend of people posting audio or video files of my speeches online has made it difficult for me to maintain this split-personality / facade. I think it's a good thing that these things go online, but it reminds me a bit of politicians being criticized for what they have said at parties or "among friends"... or the Enron telephone calls. I have always encouraged this and poked fun myself. Being on the receiving end of this chilling effect is interesting. The core message I deliver doesn't change but delivery is slightly dampened.

I haven't been "outed" yet and I'm sure most people would understand what I was saying in the context in which my talks are delivered, but I sometimes say things that I'm sure I would say differently on my blog. In my mind, this is translated to words the audience understands in their frameworks in order to be constructive, but in a sense I'm being a bit dishonest. I also pull back on the "radical" throttle when I think it is going to offend my audience so much they will reject everything I say. Having said that, I've had a number of people get really upset. One publisher in Finland called my presentation about Creative Commons "disgusting".

My blog is probably the most "balanced" version of my position so just imagine that I'm slight more radical when I'm talking to the radicals and slightly more "soft" when I'm talking to conservatives. But my question is, am I compromising by adapting my words for the audience and where is the line beyond which I am not adapting words, but changing my position? What would Gandhi do? I suppose everyone does this to a certain extent but I was suddenly conscious of this gap last night.

Joi is taking an inward view here: what should he personally do about his softening or hardening his take on issues. But I think about it at the social level: the Internet -- like all media -- has a powerful normative pressure. The recent discussion re: Niall Kennedy and Technorati (see here) is just another flare-up. Employers putting pressure on employees to not draw unwanted sorts of attention because of their esoteric or unsavory outside interests is only one form of this not so subtle pressure can take.

In a global village, everyone knows your kinks, knows what you said at a public function last night, and what contrarian or unpopular beliefs you hold. And there is a natural human tendency to get in line. The nail that sticks up will be beaten down.

Last year at Supernova, I was condemned as a kook on the conference blog, because I led a panel session on the future of email and stated that 'email blows': making the case that its not very good for what we most want it to do -- communicating with people we know already -- but really good for the thing we most hate about email, namely people we don't know communicating with us, which is spam. When I suggested that the future of email was less email and more social tools, like blogs and instant messaging, I was almost tarred and feathered. One guy was actually yelling at me to get off the podium, and so angry that the spit was flying from his mouth. It was almost a riot.

Had I the sensitivity of Joi instead of the hide of a rhino I would have toned down my radicalism on this issue, held a more moderate tone, and perhaps have persuaded a few middle-of-the-roaders that these neato social tools might be worth testing out. But I believe that Gandhi was right: "You have to be the change you want in the world."

Joi's self-doubt is well-founded. In a village, if you say one thing today and the opposite tomorrow, everyone will know.

A central issue in having a true voice -- authenticity and authority -- is to draw lines, and to howl when they are crossed. That Supernova audience, of 40 and 50 year olds, who believe that email is the killer app just were unwilling to envision a world (ten years from now) when the teenagers of today are in the workdforce and today's twenty-somethings are in key executive posts, and email will seem as antique as telegrams, fax, and landline phones.

Leaving the specifics of that event behind, or the specifics of Joi's presentation on copyright, it is essential that we take principled stands on the issues of the day, whether or not they are popular. The tyranny of the majority is just as bad as any other monopoly. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. At one time the majority of people believed in the divine right of kings, slavery, and human sacrifice to propitiate the gods.

[Pointer from Greg Yardley, who maintains that "The conversation of all with all has a moderating effect that dampens extremism in all forms, as individuals are forced to constantly monitor how their behavior will look to others - including individuals they haven’t even met yet." Although he thinks that this is a good thing, which I do not.]