December 29, 2005
Anonymity and Pseudonymity
Over at the Cave of the Curmudgeon, James links to a post by LaShawn Barber discussing the power of blogs. James is specifically interested in this quote of LaShawn’s about anonymous comments and bloggers:
But unrestrained power coupled with little to no accountability is a dangerous thing. As a blogger who’s been the subject of nasty and false statements made by bloggers and in comment sections by anonymous cowards, I know what people are capable of saying when they get caught up in online anonymity. When you’re not man or woman enough to stand behind your words using your own name, high ideals like accountability and responsibility are mere afterthoughts.
I’ve long thought that anonymity can be a dangerous thing. In the online world, it is far too easy to be truly anonymous, and you can easily hide behind a proxy server and completely fake and transient identities if you so choose. But at the same time, there are a large number of bloggers who write using a pseudonym. Many do so because they may blog about things that they don’t want people to know their true identity, or simply because they choose to use a pen name. I don’t know if Samuel Clemens was really trying to hide anything when he used the name Mark Twain.
In the blogging world, I think pseudonymous bloggers can be nearly as credible as bloggers using their real name, for the reasons I spell out below. This is my comment in response to James’ post:
Personally, I use my own name when I blog, but I don’t think it’s required. Where I draw the line is the distinction between anonymity and pseudonymity.
When you’re anonymous, you can spout anything you want without any question of credibility or backlash against yourself. But at the same time, making statements anonymously has none of what is truly the currency of the blog community: credibility.
When you take a pseudonym, you ascribe a name and identity to your thoughts. It doesn’t matter if people know me as “Brad Warbiany” or by the name of my blog, “The Unrepentant Individual”. As long as I am consistent and ascribe the same identity to my thoughts wherever I go, the reputation built on that identity will grow or diminish based upon the credibility I earn.
In most situations, pseudonymous bloggers can be nearly as credible as bloggers using their real name. And in some cases, people need to keep pseudonymous to protect their own real identity. The main difference between bloggers using their own name and pseudonymous bloggers is that a pseudonym is much easier to escape from and discard than a legal name. And that ease is what gives the added credibility to those using a real name. But I don’t consider the jump to be large.
5 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You know, Brad, I’d just finished reading that post by LaShawn when I saw your trackback ping and followed it on over…
You both make good points about accountability in blogging, and where I think Kathleen Parker fell down is that she does not realize that a blog can be anything the author wants it to be in order to attract the audience that he or she desires.
You know quite well that I poli-blogged for some time before my life got too busy for me to really invest myself in it, and then I resorted to blogging someplace else, quietly, recording generalized thoughts about life, politics, work, and whatnot.
The reason why my blogs never contain a profile, address, or last name is because of the many nutcases who do prowl the internet. A blog can be a deeply personal insight into someone’s views and personality. Vital clues about that person’s habits, movements, place of work and residence can be gleaned if the author isn’t wary enough. Ill-wishing or dangerous people can use that to their advantage. With a small child to protect, and a job to keep, it’s better for someone like me to keep my identity as generalized as possible in order to deflect the predators and madmen out there.
What momentarily chafed was Parker’s insinuation that without some sort of professional credentials, the opinions and insight of citizen authors are without merit. It’s elitism of this degree that is really choking the tree of “traditional” journalism. But then, what does it hurt me if Kathleen Parker’s myopia keeps her from really absorbing the delightful variety of ideas and insights available online?
Maybe critical reading and open-mindedness are not her strong suits. Her loss.
All the best,
Linda
Brad, thanks for the comment.
Linda, I’ve added my name because I’m more comfortable blogging than I was intitally; I started out tentatively, as an “old dog learning new tricks.” However, I will continue to avoid addresses, direct pictures or full names of family members, and telling pictures of my home, for the very reasons you mention. I don’t yet get enough traffic to worry about it but I remain cautious. There are a lot of nuts out there.
I think that the most important issue is WHAT is being said not necessarily WHO said it. For example, The Federalist Papers were written anonymously and were important in shaping our country’s form of government. If a statement is foolishness or simply a rant against another person, it doesn’t matter WHO said it, but that we can recognize it for WHAT it is. A name attached is not going to make any difference, it is the content.
I guess the nice thing about being young, dumb, and full of… bravado… is that I don’t really worry about that sort of thing. Anybody who really wants to find me won’t have that hard of a time, as I’m the only Brad Warbiany in the world. And it’s not like I’m trying that hard to hide. Maybe I should worry about that sort of thing, but I just don’t have time for it.
John, I agree. Especially for most political theory, where writing a theoretical piece on natural rights or constitutional law are based purely on strength of argument, not personal credibility as the informing source of information. Where it becomes more difficult is in whistleblower situations, etc. It is something where you require some credibility to believe that what the whistleblower is saying is true, but that whistleblower can’t reveal too much lest they be discovered and persecuted for it.
Brad, even with a whistleblower I believe the content would give more credibility than their name. And let’s face it, the government hates anonymity for the citizens and wants to register, license, track and spy on us, which only proves anonymity is the best policy.