It is possible to maintain and preserve anonymity in online publications, but it is difficult. With blogs and so forth, your anonymity has to be part of your project’s design from the start, and it must be kept in mind, front and center, at all times. You have to drop misleading yet consistent information regularly and make sure to avoid giving any information that could connect to your real person. On top of that, you would have to use VPNs, IP masking, and probably some pretty out-of-the-way ISPs the entire time, from the very beginning. Otherwise, your anonymity goes out the window the moment you achieve enough renown to matter.
I run a little personal blog and I wrote one post a few years ago that ended up getting tons of mass media coverage. One of Gawker's own blogs (I won't say which) outed me, I'm pretty sure by looking through all my old posts and finding one where I had stupidly used my full name years previously when absolutely nobody was reading my blog or in fact knew what a blog even was.
It was actually kind of a scary experience, and I'd have preferred it all to have kept anonymous, in fact I'd have preferred not to have the media coverage at all to start with. I was just writing for my friends, but obviously blogs are public things.
All I could do was throw up my hands and say "oh well", I mean I did not have any pretense of thinking I had a "right" to anonymity. We all have a right to post anonymously and to try to protect our identities if we wish, but just the same others have a right to try to unmask us. And if they're successful, then that's it. All we can do is congratulate them on their sleuthing abilities.
A world where anonymity was legally protected would likely have all sorts of unintended consequences. For example, imagine thousands of government operatives all out there on the internet posting anonymously, inciting violence against enemy states, or against internal dissidents, their identity as government agents legally protected - trying to unmask them would get you arrested. That's just one example I can think of.
Maybe the issues are different for commenters, but some of the best discussions I've read here, or on Jezebel, or below were excellent precisely because people did not use their real names.
In the example below, a young woman wrote a columnist at the New York Times seeking advice about a terrible situation. It's a moderated forum, but the writer said she'd had to delete only something like four comments out of over 600. In other words, the argument that people who comment anonymously invariably abuse the privilege does not fly.
And if you think the comments would have been of the same depth and honesty had everyone had to use his or her name I have a bridge to sell you.
@1.1.1.: I think the semi point here is that we can all use usernames and avatars and the like as personas, but we are not entitled to keep our true identities totally secret. There is no protection for that and neither should they.
Sure, like a form of digital Cyrano, some people can be far wittier or bolder when under the relative safety of anonymity, but much like IRL, if you say or do something, you have to own and take responsibility for it. Yes, there are extremes on either side of the spectrum when it comes to freedom to explore subcultures without fear of embarassment with the other side being those who commit crimes thinking they'll never be discovered.
As a person who has witnessed and lived through the many levels of wankery and foolishness in LiveJournal and going as far back as Prodigy, I totally agree with this.
People need to stop hiding behind their keyboards.
"But the notion that anonymous publishers have a right, in perpetuity, to keep their identities a secret-or that people who learn their identities are honor-bound not to reveal them-is nonsense."
What about people writing books under a nom de plume?
" . . . when the jig is up, it's best for anonybloggers to endure the scrutiny with dignity rather than complain that people who had no obligation or interest in preserving their anonymity have behaved as such."
And how!!! I get so tired of Chinese human rights advocates whining about having their heads chopped off for criticizing their government. I'm always all, "You said what you said. Now take your medicine!"
@Nice Beaver: Hey, fair enough, but I don't think that's a completely fair comparison in the cases here. These guys aren't under threat of death if their identities come out. It's just inconvenient.
@katekate is squared: OK, but where is the line? Is the threat of losing one's livelihood inconsequential? The threat of embarrassment? What merits protection?
Is anyone else scared that this is the "smart" and "ethical" member of the roundly discredited, thoroughly immoral Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel? Ouch.
People have written political commentary under pseudonyms since the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. You are a public figure and should expect to be criticized publicly. To go after the commentariat should be beneath you; your work and your decisions as a public servant should stand on their own merit.
It was a bad decision to "out" Jon Blevins as publius. Thanks to coverage on sites like Gawker, more people will read his opinions of you. Even people who may have agreed with you politically will nonetheless have a low opinion of you for "outing" an anonymous blogger.
@iplaudius: Didn't the Framers of the Constitution regularly write letters to their local papers under pseudonyms? I believe so. You are right. Its been done for hundreds of years with good result.
It's a dickhead maneuver goes against all netiquette but also encourages really nasty blowback from people just looking for a slim excuse to out-asshole you. If you're such a complete n00b as to not realize this, then you shouldn't be on the internet at all: you're a MENACE to yourself and others.
I guess I'll out myself as a preemptive measure: I'm Ed Whelan, former Scalia law clerk, Bush Justice Department appointee, and, most amusingly, "President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center." I like paintings of dogs playing poker (if, and only if, the dogs' genitals are covered) and punishment enemas.
@Nice Beaver: Of course, this is just a joke. I am not Mr. Whelan. Repeat: I am not Mr. Whelan. Hey! Get off of me!!! Ow!!! Who are you people? Tell my wife and kids . . . . . .
06/16/09
06/16/09
It was actually kind of a scary experience, and I'd have preferred it all to have kept anonymous, in fact I'd have preferred not to have the media coverage at all to start with. I was just writing for my friends, but obviously blogs are public things.
All I could do was throw up my hands and say "oh well", I mean I did not have any pretense of thinking I had a "right" to anonymity. We all have a right to post anonymously and to try to protect our identities if we wish, but just the same others have a right to try to unmask us. And if they're successful, then that's it. All we can do is congratulate them on their sleuthing abilities.
A world where anonymity was legally protected would likely have all sorts of unintended consequences. For example, imagine thousands of government operatives all out there on the internet posting anonymously, inciting violence against enemy states, or against internal dissidents, their identity as government agents legally protected - trying to unmask them would get you arrested. That's just one example I can think of.
06/16/09
06/16/09
In the example below, a young woman wrote a columnist at the New York Times seeking advice about a terrible situation. It's a moderated forum, but the writer said she'd had to delete only something like four comments out of over 600. In other words, the argument that people who comment anonymously invariably abuse the privilege does not fly.
And if you think the comments would have been of the same depth and honesty had everyone had to use his or her name I have a bridge to sell you.
[parenting.blogs.nytimes.com]
06/16/09
Sure, like a form of digital Cyrano, some people can be far wittier or bolder when under the relative safety of anonymity, but much like IRL, if you say or do something, you have to own and take responsibility for it. Yes, there are extremes on either side of the spectrum when it comes to freedom to explore subcultures without fear of embarassment with the other side being those who commit crimes thinking they'll never be discovered.
06/16/09
People need to stop hiding behind their keyboards.
06/16/09
What about people writing books under a nom de plume?
Damn that Dr. Seuss.
06/16/09
And how!!! I get so tired of Chinese human rights advocates whining about having their heads chopped off for criticizing their government. I'm always all, "You said what you said. Now take your medicine!"
06/16/09
06/16/09
06/16/09
06/16/09
06/16/09
I couldn't agree more.
06/16/09
06/16/09
06/16/09
06/08/09
06/08/09
06/08/09
People have written political commentary under pseudonyms since the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. You are a public figure and should expect to be criticized publicly. To go after the commentariat should be beneath you; your work and your decisions as a public servant should stand on their own merit.
It was a bad decision to "out" Jon Blevins as publius. Thanks to coverage on sites like Gawker, more people will read his opinions of you. Even people who may have agreed with you politically will nonetheless have a low opinion of you for "outing" an anonymous blogger.
Regards,
An Anonymous Commenter
06/08/09
06/08/09
06/08/09
*sings*
"...and another one's gone, another one's gone, another one bites the dust..."
06/08/09
06/08/09
06/08/09
06/08/09
Guess you'll be having one of those punishment enemas now.