Friday, June 9, 2006

On 'outing'

Shakes pointed it out this morning:

Yesterday, the rightwing National Review Online "outed" Daily Kos front-pager Armando. (Won't link; you can head on over and search for it if you like. There's the main post and then a follow-up.) They revealed his real name and employer...

Now, I understand the reasons for people wanting to remain anonymous while blogging. There are a lot of nuts out there, as well as the pressures of business situations (one of the reasons Mrs F doesn't blog or leave many comments here). I use a pseudonym (I thought it would lend an air of mystery when I first began blogging) but two clicks from this page will reveal my identity.

What I'm saying is, I don't have an expectation of anonymity. If I'm out here, spouting off at the mouth about what I think is wrong with this country, I expect there will be people who go try to figure out as much as they can about me, figure out if I'm somewhat credible or just a nut. If I want to remain anonymous, I wouldn't blog, wouldn't try to set my voice above the din, wouldn't draw attention to myself. It's part of the payback for having people consider your opinion. It's like celebrities, who want the stardom and big bucks, but get bent out of shape at the paprazzi. You knew when you began, they were part of the package.

In Armando's case in particular, I think Seth puts it best:


We're of two minds on the matter- if one wants to remain anonymous while blogging, one should be able to. Of course, one should then probably avoid using one's own first name, or identifiable characteristics about one's profession (Digby, for instance, is still anonymous to all except those who know her/him). [my em]


If you want to remain anonymous on the Interwebs, you've gotta work at it. Stop crying and either blog or don't.

No comments: