Is it cowardly to use pseudonymns?

Great Debates
41

The text you quoted was in response to this quote from you:

I don’t see a question there. Are you referring to something else?

I’m pretty sure you can make your own list if you try. But one might try and out someone to reveal that they are not impartial, or to reveal they don’t have expertize they claim to, or to force them to publicaly own up to their attacks or opinions.

But in any case, as I said before, I don’t think the simple fact that something might harm another person (at least for some values of the word harm) is unethical. The other day I gave some woman the finger when she cut her car close to my bike. I was attempting to cause her (very mild) emotional harm, but I don’t think that was unethical (though not really classy).

billfish, I have no idea what the point of your post is. I said a) I don’t have any problem with people writing anonymously, b) I don’t think outing someones name is the same as revealing sexual or health details or other private information(which is unethical), c) obviously I’m not going to spend an hour filling out your questionairre, not because I agree with whatever point your making, but because I don’t have several hours. If it helps, my IRL name is Robert Penney, which I don’t have any problem revealing, but I don’t really see how that makes any difference for or against my above posts, since I’m not an anonymous blogger, I don’t have anything against anonymous bloggers and I don’t really care if dopers know my real life details.

42

You are correct and incorrect at different parts. I do think that posts posted anonymously are intrinsically worth less. You are not correct with your other assumptions about my intentions there or here. I’ll repeat, I was referring to all anonymous posters that way, myself especially included. As for the other matter, the moderators have “suggested” that it is inappropriate to continue it here. I agree, but the OP specifically invites just that. Nonetheless, it is better to proceed with the general topic without referring any further to the earlier thread.

43

So, “plenty of reasons” = three? Ok.

Reason 1) They are not impartial. Internet bloggers are impartial? When did that happen?

Reason 2) They don’t have claimed expertise. This can be handled by debunking their posts with appropriate citatons.

Reason 3) Force them to publicly own up to attacks or opinions. Who died and left you the final arbiter of which “attacks or opinions” must be publicly owned?

Are you saying it is appropriate to out someone with whom you disagree? I’d call that cowardly conduct. You can’t compete on the merits, so you abandon the argument and instead reveal information you know they do not want revealed.

I find none of your reasons persuasive.

44

My username is a completely unique identifier. My real name can be any of a number of people, but as far as I can tell, there is only one e-sabbath. It gives me a history across the internet for a number of years, and I stand by and on it.

45

Agreed. My personal information is my business, nobody else’s, and talking on a message board does not make it okay for you to reveal my identity for shits and giggles.

46

And that is part of the subject of this thread, although somewhere someone did point out the difference between anonymously and pseudonymously. A pseudonym is a consistent identity and has a reputation associated with it. A reputation that is put on the line and that carries some weight. A particular poster has a history that others have come to trust or to mock that follows them, at least within their own blog or in a particular board. They are not anonymous even if they are not posting under their real life name. For the purposes of the blog or the board they are that pseudonym.

Now if someone under a pseudonym claims an expertise and wishes to use that claimed expertise as an appeal to authority - well we each have our own sets of guidelines as to how we respond to appeals to authority and internet claims of expertise. In general the better posters do not say “believe me because I am an expert”; they use their expertise to create posts that are cited and well crafted and thereby convincing - no less so for the fact that it was created under a pseudonym. And such posts are worth much more than something written by a named individual merely appealing to their reputation and authority.

Huck Finn was no less a great work for having been published under the name of Mark Twain rather than that of Sam Clemons. Einstein’s ideas would have been just as brilliant if he published them under the name of Gustav Schleimann to pass German censors.

I do not know who Tamarlane “really” is (and I haven’t seen much lately sadly enough), or Una, but I know that by the time I have read something have they posted about their respective fields I will end up better educated than before. Their pseudonyms have earned deserved reputations, and reputations much better than many publishing under their real life names.

It is true that sometimes anonymity encourages imprudent comments - rudeness or even cruelty. But the nature of those comments are still self-evident and need not be prejudged.

47

And this is an excellent point. It allowed someone to blow the whistle who otherwise wasn’t in a position to blow the whistle. On the other hand, it does not let the public evaluate just how good a confirming source the anonymous source is. And in other instances, just how bad the confirming source is. Contrast this with the confirming WMD in Iraq, in which the Administration used anonymous sources, which were themselves and other admin members to confirm WMD and yellowcake.

48

I would welcome Cecil’s input on this subject, as it seems he would be uniquely qualified to answer this question.

49

I suppose that depends on what one hopes to accomplish. But, that they’re using a pseudonym necessarily leaves that decision exclusively to their writings. I think that’s the strength of a pseudonym.

Sure, some people will do it simply to be a douche, or god knows what else. That doesn’t mean it’s inherently cowardly to write under a name not originally your own. Indeed, many of our greatest reads in history were written thus. Does this somehow call into question the sage wit of The Forrester, or Mark Twain? Hell, those are the names we know them by. No one goes about talking Samual Clemons. He is Mark Twain.

It’s curious to note that the law recognizes this.

Outing a person is a dubious enterprise. Since we can’t know one’s reason for creating the pseudonym in the first place, to justify outing them we have ourselves have to impose our own estimation of why they did it and choose to take their risks for them. And by take their risks for them, I suppose that really should be read “make them take the risks, despite how egregious they may be, for their own thoughts.” Whether that be losing a job, being divorced, disowned, excommunicated, murdered, or whatever, it ultimately doesn’t matter because they are all equally possible from the information we have. We just gamble that it won’t be a very bad whatever when we choose to decline to give deference to someone else with respect to their own estimation of what it is in their lives they need to protect.

There are exceptions, such as outing Congressmen for hiring gay hookers while at the same time advocating a bill to restrict either gays or hookers. That’s rank hypocrisy. But there difference there, other than dealing with said person’s mendacity, is that he’s chosen to put himself in an office of public trust. Much becomes fair game when one does that.

There are likely other exceptions in which I’d advocate that outing is better than not, but none really spring to mind. I’m generally of the mind that one’s privacy is best handled in a manner they deem appropriate.

The poster on a message board is usually a different story.

It’s also worth noting that some rather bad arguments have been made suggesting that because it’s not illegal, it’s somehow perfectly acceptable. That’s a dubious claim for which there can be no convincing evidence to support. Acceptable is a societal construct; it isn’t an absolute.

Even the law isn’t absolute, which is why we have juries. They are able to couple both legal and acceptable in their verdicts. But it simply doesn’t do to suggest that because something isn’t illegal that is somehow dispositive of the situation. Many forms of lying aren’t necessarily illegal, but that doesn’t make them acceptable. People have lost their entire life’s work over such things. Though that isn’t directly on point.

At some point in time, murder wasn’t illegal. Do you advocate that it was then ethical? You see, ethics aren’t dictated by what’s legal or not. The law only decides what actions one may take which subject him to imprisonment. Laws also don’t predate ethics; they are enacted as a result of ethics. Do bear that in mind and thus avoid the logical fallacy which has permeated this thread.

For my own part, I write everywhere under ashman165. I’ve had this handle for some fifteen years now. So, that name, which is no less a part of my identity than my real name, has a reputation among certain groups of people, much like my real name does in my field. I strive to keep both names in good stead with the understanding that not everyone’s going to like me, agree with me or think I’m even particularly non-retarded. But I’ve yet only run into one person who wanted to use my online name as a way to find the real me to discuss things “like [real men]”. I took that to mean some kind of ritual combat or something.

So, is it cowardly to want to protect my home, my family, my person from outside harms by not writing under my real name? No more so than putting locks on my doors, wearing a seat belt and using a condom when I sleep [around. Edit: I think adding in around here makes the sentence far less strange. Ya know, like just wearing a condom when I sleep?]. The line between bravery and stupidity, as has been said, is quite thin. Specifically inviting trouble, the likes of which one can easily find online, isn’t any less stupid than sleeping around without a condom. Even if what you get doesn’t kill you, is it something you really want to begin with?

50

Which is why the policy on the Straight Dope Message Boards is one username per person. You may choose a pseudonym if you wish, but you are still responsible for what you say. Posting under multiple names is a bannable offense.

51

Simplicio, let’s say I don’t want to be bothered by telemarketers. I get an unlisted phone number, sign up for the do not call list, and so forth. If telemarketers keep calling me, is it somehow my responsibility for not hiding myself well enough? Note that there isn’t really anything unethical about calling people to try to sell them the Sham-Wow or whatever, it just isn’t very nice to do so.

52

My understanding is that it is illegal (and hence, unethical) to call someone who has placed themselves on the do-not-call list. So again, the analogy doesn’t hold (and again, I really think analogies in general should be avoided in debates, it rarely does anything to clarify the issue at hand, often confuses it, and almost always leads to completely tangential arguments about how well the analogy holds or completely unrelated arguments about the thing be analogized to).

My entire point isn’t that someone should be blamed for allowing their true identity to be revealed, it’s that there is no blame to be assigned. Outing someone as an author isn’t necessarily wrong, breaking the law and calling someone on the do-not-call list is.

53

That’s where your argument falls apart. You have yet to offer any persuassive reason for doing so. Pretty much all you got there is “I wanna do it”. The choice of whether someone reveals their identity belongs to that individual. You don’t get to decide what someone else should do.

54

I mentioned several reasons, and I think just about everyone is capable of coming up with plenty of reasons why they’d want to reveal the writer of an anonymous blog posting. If an anonymous blogger wrote an article about what a jerk Bill Gates was, the fact that that person is really Steve Jobs is relevant. Your argument that “lots of internet writers are impartial” isn’t really convincing. Knowing someones personal connection to a subject is frequently of interest when evaluating their arguments. And not every internet writer has such a personal connection.

Debunking someones falsely claimed expertize can be done by debunking their posts with citations, as you say (though someone with credentials can still be wrong). It can also be done by revealing that they are not someone IRL with the expertize they claim. Just because there may exist a second method of doing something doesn’t mean the first method is invalid.

I don’t really understand your response to my third reason, I don’t think anyone died and made me arbiter of anything. I can make a choice to reveal knowledge about a persons identity without anyone dying or declaring me final arbiter of anything.

And of course a fourth reason is simple curiousity. There have been plenty of threads here “outing” Cecil Adams as Ed Zotti. I don’t think anyone does this as an attack on Cecil, but simply because they’re interested in Cecil’s real identity.

But I’m not making them reveal their identity, I’m doing it for them. They can deny it if they want.

55

I wasn’t arguing lots of internet writers are impartial. That would be insane. Most bloggers I’ve seen are very much partisan. There is no legal or moral requirement for them to be otherwise. If you go to “Bleeding Heart Liberal Tree Hugger Blog”, you know what you’re getting…a leftist perspective on whatever subject the blogger addresses.

And the point where we disagree is this: You have no right to reveal the identity of a blogger that wishes to remain unknown. Yeah, you won’t go to jail for it…but it’s still a bad thing to do.

56

When a blogger or forum poster creates a pseudonym, that is the equivalent of placing oneself on the Do Not Call list. If they wanted their real name to be known, they would use their real names. Most bloggers/posters create email accounts just for their blog/posting. If they wanted to receive email at myrealname@home.com, they would list that email. They don’t tho.

I agree that it isn’t inherently wrong to out a blogger/poster, that there can be valid reasons to do so, but there is some equivalence between the Do Not Call and the assumption of a pseudonym, IMO.

Also,although it’s not exactly pertinent, I’ll point out that because something is illegal doesn’t automatically make it unethical, and the fact that something isn’t illegal doesn’t make it an ethical thing to do, which seems to be the crux of your viewpoint, Simplico.

57

The problem here is that when you assign some degree of blame or responsibility for the person who wished to avoid the spotlight, but did not take “enough” steps to protect themselves, what do you consider a reasonable amount of effort to remain anonymous?

In the case of telemarketers, it was not always illegal to call someone who tried to avoid telemarketing calls. In the case of the OP, it isn’t illegal to out a blogger. But you seem to be suggesting that if someone’s true identity is sussed out, then they should have done more to protect themselves. That isn’t a useful construct.

Surely there ought to be some reasonable level of precaution that an individual could take that builds a case that if someone tried to out that person, then they are acting unethically; and below that threshold, then it probably isn’t a big deal.

For example, if I talked about my street address or phone numbers or where I work or something, I would have less of a case that someone wronged me by revealing my name.

However, if I am scrupulous in omitting sensitive information, but someone manages to legally gather IP information about my posting habits, and then deduces who I am, should I share the responsibility for my identity being revealed because I didn’t use technological means to obscure my IP address? That seems unreasonable to me.

58

Well here is the thing, it is bas form to out someone who is anonymous if youa re doing it because you simply don’t like their arguments. But in this country you have the right to face your accuser (legally, I realize this is not a court, etc. I am just advocating the principal) and I think if someone attacks you personally then you have every right to determine who it is. Having said that I don’t know what the content of Publius’ articles were, if they wer directed at Wheln persoanlly or at his positions and argumants.

59

Except they aren’t equivalent, since telemarketing against peoples wishes (as manifested by the do-not-call list) is illegal. Phone solicitation was found to be a public nusance, and so the gov’t took steps to stop it. Outing bloggers isn’t a public nuisance and hasn’t been made illegal. Indeed I suspect an attempt by the gov’t to keep private individuals from revealing eachothers identities would be unconstitutional (as would preventing them from trying to assume anonymous identities).

Your first phrase is basically my thesis, so we agree. This is a good example of the reason for my hatred of analogies (which burns with the firey hatred of a hundred suns) in debates, we agree, but are still left arguing over the validity of some analogy. Frankly, I don’t really care if the Do Not Call list has “some equivalence” with the assumption of a psuedonym.

How can something both be the crux of my argument and also not pertinent? But anyways, I certainly wouldn’t suggest that just because something is legal, it is also ethical (or the reverse, though that’s at least arguable). My point with the illegality of puching someone in the nose or calling someone on the Do Not Call list make them poor analogies for outing bloggers.

Oakminster, I of course meant not impartial in the previous post. Appologies for the typo.

60

Don’t know if it’s a “useful construct” or not, but it’s certainly undeniably true. If you are trying to keep your identity secret, and someone figures it out, you pretty much by definition should have done more to protect yourself, at least from a practical standpoint. Relying on the kindness of strangers (or in Publius’s case, enemies) to keep your secret if they find out is obviously a dicey proposition. Of course they might feel a moral obligation to keep your secret, but they might not.

I think this is the crux of our argument. You seem to think that if someone makes it clear they want something kept secret, everyone else is morally obligated to keep it for them. While certainly I agree that in many cases it is not very nice to spill the beans on someone, and indeed in many cases it may be unethical, it is not necessarily so. If I find out Cecil Adams is really Britney Spears’s pen name, and I found out not because Cecil/Britney told me in confidence but simply by chance, I don’t think I’m under any ethical obligation not to shout it from the rooftops.