Slog
News & ArtsMonday, June 8, 2009
Books / Teh Internets You're Never as Anonymous as You Think You Are
Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM
In a post titled "Exposing an Irresponsible Anonymous Blogger," Ed Whelan, a legal conservablogger for National Review, outed a pseudonymous liberal blogger over the weekend.
Well, I’m amused to learn that I was wrong about publius’s lack of legal education. I’ve been reliably informed that publius is in fact the pseudonym of law professor John F. Blevins of the South Texas College of Law. I e-mailed Blevins to ask him to confirm or deny that he is publius, and I copied the e-mail to the separate e-mail address, under the pseudonym “Edward Winkleman,” that publius used to respond to my initial private complaints about his reckless blogging. In response, I received from “Edward Winkleman” an e-mail stating that he is “not commenting on [his] identity” and that he writes under a pseudonym “[f]or a variety of private, family, and professional reasons.”
The two writers had gone head-to-pseudonymous-head for years. Whelan's actions have set off a little storm of discussions about internet pseudonyms, and he responded to those criticisms here:
A blogger may choose to blog under a pseudonym for any of various self-serving reasons, from the compelling (e.g., genuine concerns about personal safety) to the respectable to the base. But setting aside the extraordinary circumstances in which the reason to use a pseudonym would be compelling, I don’t see why anyone else has any obligation to respect the blogger’s self-serving decision.
And here's the thing: I don't agree with Whelan's actions, but I do agree with what he has to say about obligation. It's morally sketchy to out someone like that, but you shouldn't operate under a pseudonym without being able to deal with the consequences of your actions. Blevins's fellow law bloggers are discussing the issue further here and here.
This sort of thing is something that the Seattle blogging community dealt with a while ago, of course, when right-wing blogger Stefan Sharkansky outed his waiter when she revealed that he was a bad tipper on a blog, but this sort of thing is an important discussion to reconsider from time to time.
1
Another way to look at it is that a web identity is its own thing. That is, it's not "anonymous" because it has a name...and the name may be Skeeter#123 or whatever you kids name yourselves.
So, the important thing is how Skeeter#123 thinks and acts on the web. What ever physical unit is driving Skeeter in 3-D is irrelevant, in the same way that what deli J.D. Salinger had roast beef at in 1953 isn't directly responsible for Frannie's utterances.
So, the important thing is how Skeeter#123 thinks and acts on the web. What ever physical unit is driving Skeeter in 3-D is irrelevant, in the same way that what deli J.D. Salinger had roast beef at in 1953 isn't directly responsible for Frannie's utterances.
3
Is this the same Publius that posted all that shite about a Pink Floyd treasure map about 15 years ago?
4
and for those of us with multiple personality favor - the issue is moot
but remember - the NSA knows your true identity
but remember - the NSA knows your true identity
6
Carollani, I've met you -- your name's Dave, isn't it?
I really don't get the drama on this. The "blogosphere" is never exposed more fully as the bunch of self-important weenies they are when they go all meta like this. Sullivan et al. are going bananas, but I really don't see what the big deal is. Nobody really cares who the hell Publius is; only whether they enjoy his writing or not.
And if he worked for "old media" he'd presumably have been outed a long time ago. Although: I was just reading a (not very good) history of the Mexican War, and during that deeply evil conflict, many of the pseudonymous correspondents for the newspapers (New Orleans had TEN DAILIES then) were exposed as ambitious US soldiers, generals and captains, reporting from the field.
So, you know, same as it ever was.
I really don't get the drama on this. The "blogosphere" is never exposed more fully as the bunch of self-important weenies they are when they go all meta like this. Sullivan et al. are going bananas, but I really don't see what the big deal is. Nobody really cares who the hell Publius is; only whether they enjoy his writing or not.
And if he worked for "old media" he'd presumably have been outed a long time ago. Although: I was just reading a (not very good) history of the Mexican War, and during that deeply evil conflict, many of the pseudonymous correspondents for the newspapers (New Orleans had TEN DAILIES then) were exposed as ambitious US soldiers, generals and captains, reporting from the field.
So, you know, same as it ever was.
9
My name is Ethel Mae Van Houten-Twing and I live at 414 S. Somonauk St., Sycamore, IL 60178. So nyeh!
10
Whatever else may be the case, it's a shitty stunt to try to gain ground in an intellectual debate by going after the personal life of your opponent. I understant that this stuff will happen in electoral politics, but it seems shitty and pointless in the world of punditry and opinion.,
11
Help me out here - it's OK to out someone for signing the Referendum 71 petition, but it's not OK to out someone for what they write on their blog?
Why the hell not?
Why the hell not?
13
#11 A petition that can change our laws has to have verified signatures, the verification has to be public, so those identities are a matter of public record. A blog post does not have the power to change our laws, and unless the poster commits some sort of crime (defamation, etc) his identity is nobody's business.
Our constitution owes its existence in no small part to the anonymous blogging of someone calling himself publius, so I think we should regard anonymity as a sacred right, and I think ISP's should kick out anyone who outs a law-abiding blogger (or blog commenter).
Our constitution owes its existence in no small part to the anonymous blogging of someone calling himself publius, so I think we should regard anonymity as a sacred right, and I think ISP's should kick out anyone who outs a law-abiding blogger (or blog commenter).
14
#13 has it. Hamilton, Franklin, Jay, Madison, and Jefferson made sweet sweet love to the anonymous editorial form.
15
While I certainly agree that, as a tactical move, outing a pseudonymic blogger, particularly one you are having an ongoing exchange with, isn't a particularly effective means of scoring points in an argument, neither do I believer that anonymity per se is any sort of "sacred right".
Although it is true the gentlemen cited by @14 all published using pseudonyms, they also were "moderated" to the extent the publishers of the periodicals to which they submitted chose to print their opinions. Presumably, those editors were sympathetic to their positions, but they were under no obligation or compulsion to publish their letters; they did so because they contained well-developed arguments that were well-articulated in a manner that clearly explained the position being held.
Comparing their use of pseudonymic identities with that of the average Internet troll denigrates both the considerable risk those individuals faced at the hands of an oppressive government (should their identities have become known), and additionally makes a mockery of cause for which they argued.
Although it is true the gentlemen cited by @14 all published using pseudonyms, they also were "moderated" to the extent the publishers of the periodicals to which they submitted chose to print their opinions. Presumably, those editors were sympathetic to their positions, but they were under no obligation or compulsion to publish their letters; they did so because they contained well-developed arguments that were well-articulated in a manner that clearly explained the position being held.
Comparing their use of pseudonymic identities with that of the average Internet troll denigrates both the considerable risk those individuals faced at the hands of an oppressive government (should their identities have become known), and additionally makes a mockery of cause for which they argued.
16
Then I suppose it's time for me to come out of the closet. Since I'll eventually be outed by someone else I'll just tell you.
I'm really Laura Bush.
I'm really Laura Bush.
17
@15: Outing a pseudonymous blogger's identity is prima facie proof that you cannot counter their arguments on their own merits. It is the tactic of a loser, much like Godwin's law.
18
@17:
I believe I ceded that point at least to some extent. But, that's also assuming the person being outed actually HAS a coherent argument to begin with; and based on much of the inarticulate bloviation that passes across my screen on a regular basis, I think it's safe to say most anonymous trolls don't come anywhere close to meeting even that basic standard.
I believe I ceded that point at least to some extent. But, that's also assuming the person being outed actually HAS a coherent argument to begin with; and based on much of the inarticulate bloviation that passes across my screen on a regular basis, I think it's safe to say most anonymous trolls don't come anywhere close to meeting even that basic standard.
19
That is funny, Mr. Constant. You named me earlier this year. Ant then you apologized. Is you mind truly just full of Legos, Cool Whip and old games of Monopoly? Are you capable of a deep, intellectual thought and then are you capable of defending that thought? Or do you just want it both ways all the time?
Nunya
Nunya
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (19) RSS