Xopher, I think you're correct in that assessment, but your response indicates that my last question wasn't entirely clear. I'm not asking why pseudonymous folks don't question the pseudonymity of others; I'm asking why named bloggers do, given that the pseudonymous don't seem to question naming practices AT ALL -- one might assume, by the logic you lay out, that there would be pseudonymous posts wondering why some people post under their own names or expressing frustration with those who do -- but I haven't seen it. (Of course, if you can offer a counter-example, I'd be willing to reconsider this.)
Well, I've got a pseudonym, and I've just gone through a bruising weeklong round of posts and comments defending my position (start here and on my blog if you really want to read more -- it's this week and last week), so I don't know what I'm doing commenting on this here, but...
Why does it matter so much what my real name is? I can see that if someone you know in "real" life is posting pseudonymously without telling you, it could be a bit creepy. (You don't know me; if you did, I'd send an email telling you.) But my real name would tell you nothing of note, while exposing me to the vagaries and whims and casual voyeurism that makes up the web at large, an audience that includes stalkerish former boyfriends, potential employers in a very tight job market, and fretting-prone parents, all with ready access to Google. (Lest you think I'm being paranoid, let me point to the fate of bloggers like Heather dooce.com and The Sarcastic Journalist who got fired because of their blogs.)
Now, I suppose one could argue that if one isn't willing to take the risk, one shouldn't blog. That seems a rather high-handed approach (and not one I see you making, necessarily, but...) and raises the question of who sets the standards for blog-appropriate behavior. I'd rather leave that decision open to the commons, which includes people blogging using pseudonyms.
I've also seen the argument made that unless we all blog openly, the danger of being punished for blogging under our legal names will continue. This strikes me as a red herring; it presumes that the primary risk is being discovered _as a blogger_ versus the wider range of risks, such as exposure to random nutjobs, known threats, and so on. Again, I'm not claiming you're making this argument, just that it is one I see a lot.
Similarly, I see the claim made many times that pseudonyms provide a shield from responsibility, that anonymous posters and bloggers are more free to write slander and the like, since they feel free from retribution. I don't feel persuaded by this argument for two reasons; first, if one's legal name is very common, like "John Smith" or "Eric Anderson" I can't see that it offers any more accountability than a pseudonym, especially if the real name poster offers just a name, while another pseudonymous poster is reachable via his or her email, blog, etc. Second, it presumes that there are no checks on the pseudonymous poster. There are at least two that operate in my own case: I value my online reputation, and don't want the various people who see me posting as Rana to see me as a ranting whackjob who insults people -- if I do post like that under this pseudonym, it WILL come back to haunt me. Second, I have my own standards, and they operate irrespective of the name I use. So I would argue that the issue is not the name per se, but rather what mechanisms can be used to keep posters accountable, which may include the use of real names, but not necessarily.
A final observation: I've never seen a blogger who uses a pseudonym complaining about the names other bloggers and posters choose to use. It's only those who choose to use their legal names that raise this question. Why is that?
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 3 |
Total: 3 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Rana:
Show all comments by Rana.