The Metaphysics of Pseudonymity
I’m glad to see Ed Whelan apologize for having outed pseudonymous blogger “Publius,” though obviously the correct way to handle this kind of situation is to not do the outing in the first place. Once the deed is done, it’s hard to take back.
For some larger thoughts on the ethics of the issue, I’d recommend what Julian Sanchez has to say. But a separate point I would make is that the whole notion that you might want to “unmask” a pseudonymous internet persona with a longstanding and stable presence on the web strikes me as partaking of certain slightly odd presuppositions. The thinking seems to be that some almost magical power is held by knowing the real name of a blogger. This seems to me to be about on a par with the stories (are they even true?) you sometimes hear about tribes who think that you can steal someone’s soul by taking a photograph, or that if you learn the true names of animals you can command them to do your bidding.
I mean, it’s not as if the fact that my name is “Matthew Yglesias” is a particularly interesting or important fact about me (indeed, it’s not even on my birth certificate, though it is my real legal name since I was a few days old). Arguably, various biographical facts about me are relevant. I’ve written that I’m from New York City, that I went to Dalton and Harvard, that my dad’s a writer, etc. But I could be lying about that stuff consistent with using my accurate name. And plenty of people who do blog under their real names are not as forthcoming with biographical information. But the point is that if the idea is that someone is actively misrepresenting themselves on the Internet—blogging about climate change without ever mentioning that you work in the PR department for a coal company—that’s clearly a problem. But the problem is the misrepresentation rather than the pseudonym. And, indeed, this trick can be pulled off just as easily with full name and biographical details. After all, you know all about me, but you have no idea who CAPAF’s donors are, and the same applies to just about everyone you read who works at a DC-based non-profit.
And of course it’s a fallacy to assume a perfect identity between any Internet persona and its author(s). A whole bunch of different writers collaborate on producing Think Progress and they write in what I think is a pretty uniform voice. But like the writers behind The Economist, they’re actually all beautiful unique snowflakes who are often quite different from the TP persona. And by the same token, Matthew Yglesias “in real life” is not the same as the character I play on the Internet. On the other hand, I’m not sure it’s quite right to say that the in-the-flesh MY is “real” and the on-the-Internet one is somehow “fake.” This blog has existed for over seven years now, and it’s almost certainly the case that more people “know” the persona than know me. And I think that should hold all the more strongly for any prominent pseudonymous bloggers. The well-known, stable character is a person with integrity, influence, a personality, a reputation, social connections, etc., the same as anyone else. To be sure, they may be artifice in terms of the presentation of the character. But our various “in real life” self-presentations (to a boss, to a first date, to family, to friends, to people we run into at a high school reunion) involve artifice as well.
71 Responses to “The Metaphysics of Pseudonymity”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 9th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
First!
June 9th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Anyone who has ever read Spiderman/Batman/Superman etc. knows that the villians all want to expose the heroes’ secret identity. This never made a lick of sense to me, since if people knew Clark Kent was Superman, for example, it would just turn Clark Kent into a celebrity, not make it impossible for him to fly or anything. Was the whole “must protect secret identity” thing just because superheroes are a bunch of moody Eddie Vedder types who chafe in the spotlight?
Anyway, we’re onto you, “Matt Yglesias.” Soon the whole world will know who you really are. Mwah ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
June 9th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I’m getting dizzy. “This blog” is seven years old?
“I’m not sure it’s quite right to say that the in-the-flesh MY is”real”?”
One of me, or something that looks like me, is going back to Donald Davidson. He’s easier to understand, and doesn’t induce dissociation.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Superheroes want to protect their secret identities for security reasons. Superman is bullet proof, but Ma Kent is not and if his enemies know who he is they will hurt her out of spite. Or Tony Stark has to sleep sometimes, and does not wear his Iron Man armor while he sleeps, so you don’t want your enemies just bombing your house. And so on.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Hindrocket and Deacon at Power Line have come out decisively against Publius using a pseudonym.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Now we know the truth:
This blog is just a vast conspiracy to hide Matt’s true identity that will only be revealed after he is elected president…birthers unite!
June 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
There is a superstition/belief (centuries old, based in Christianity and other religions) that to know the name of a Demon gives you control of the Demon. To utter the name was either to call the Demon forth or banish the Demon.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Link, btw.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
spokeytown -
In addition to the fact that knowing where nonpowered/noninvulnerable heroes lay their head could make it easier to attack them unawares – i.e., if you know where Peter Parker lives, watch him go inside and then blow up the building – the tradtional point of emphasis is that secret identities preserve the safety of the heroes’ loved ones. Picking only from recent movies, the Green Goblin goes after Aunt May to unsettle Spiderman, it seems like all sorts of people take shots at Mary Jane, Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight catches the Joker’s attention as much because he realizes Batman cares about her as because she’s with Harvey Dent, etc. A world in which everyone knows Bruce Wayne is Batman is a world in which Bruce Wayne needs to devote more energy to protecting his loved ones and less energy focusing on violating that bad guys’ constitutional rights.
Marvel, of course, did recently unmask a whole bunch of heroes as part of their Civil War storyline, which from what little I read of it, and from what much I read about it, was really really bad. Supposedly they did play one joke where they take advantage of the fact that lots of the heroes in the Marvel U. are kind of prominent civilians aside from being heroes, and had Spidey reveal himself as Peter Parker, to widespread “who?” Not as exciting as finding out Tony Stark is Iron Man.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Hindrocket and Deacon at Power Line have come out decisively against Publius using a pseudonym.
The moral of the story is that if you have a pseudonym don’t be gratuitously rude and nasty when attacking other’s ideas because you can’t rely on them adhering to some sort of “bloggers code” when it comes to “outing.” Especially if they’re conservatives.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
The moral of the story is that if you have a pseudonym don’t be gratuitously rude and nasty[.]
I don’t read Obsidian Wings often, so I don’t know the whole history going back to the Koh dust-up, but as far as I can tell the worst thing Publius said about Whelan was that the latter has been advancing partisan arguments beneath his intelligence and training. That doesn’t strike me as rude or nasty, and certainly not gratuitously.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Outing can be liberating. The pseudonym “publius” was a bit pretentious.
It’s also worth noting that you can tell from her face that Sotomayor is a long-term, heavy drinker. She’s obviously unqualified for the court.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
This blog is just a vast conspiracy to hide Matt’s true identity that will only be revealed after he is elected president…birthers unite!
My conspiracy theory is that Matt’s true identity is a Japanese robot (who enjoys basketball) which explains his superhuman output. (joke)
June 9th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“But the problem is the misrepresentation rather than the pseudonym.”
Misrepresentation is only one problem. Pseudonym’s enabling bad behavior is another. But beyond even those is the disparity in the interaction between a public and a pseudononymous blogger. Ed Whelen is Ed Whelen and what he does online can effect him offline. Publius’ behavior online could have no effect on him offline. Publius could distance himself from his blogging in a way Whelen cannot, creating an imbalance in any debate between them. If publius wants to be on the same stage as Whelen, he should be willing to suffer under the public spotlight just like Whelen has to.
Mike
June 9th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Okay, this “Blevins” shit isn’t funny. I know Yglesias finds it cute to ignore the raw sewage that flows through the comments on the blog that bears his name, but blatant defamation ought to be too much even for him, and for CAPAF. Fucking do something about it.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
What I never got about the notion that publius’ commentary was somehow beyond the pale of allowable discourse was that:
publius’ starting point was an argument, by Eugene Volokh, that Whelan was really, really wrong. publius endorses Volokh’s argument. Volokh, who’s supposed to be some sort of neutral arbiter of the libertarian/right legal sphere because he’s very bright and [comments redacted because I'm blogging pseudonymously] presumably also believes that his argument, concerning Whelan’s elemental errors, was correct.
publius, because he’s not Volokh, then considers why Whelan could be so drastically incorrect. Obviously, one argues for an incorrect position either because (1) they truly believe it, or (2) they’re being dishonest. publius thought Whelan was too smart and well educated to really believe what he was saying, and therefore accused him of dishonesty. For an accusation of dishonesty to be so offensive, what are we left with? That publius should’ve commented that clearly Whelan was an incompetent and a mental lightweight? What thought process is one supposed to follow after noting that Whelan is arguing for an incorrect position (assuming one so believes)?
June 9th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
An interesting reversal of this phenomenon around here recently has been the Mixner sock puppet follies. I feel pretty safe in assuming “Mixner” isn’t his actual name but he’s apparently been trying to dissociate himself from this pseudonym by calling himself charles, which is a much more plausible “real” name. Interestingly, few around here are interested in addressing him as “charles” because his “true” self has been revealed to us as “Mixner” all along.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
MBunge, that gives a natural advantage to those like Whelan, who are in a more powerful and stable professional position than your average Pseudonym.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I would hope that a wise borachita with the richness of her mojitos would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a some name stealer who isn’t worth his protoplasm.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
The thinking seems to be that some almost magical power is held by knowing the real name of a blogger.
No I think the thinking is that by publicly revealing the identity of the blogger, one might thereby reduce their freedom to write and comment by destroying the security afforded by anonymity. It is evident that many people in public life, and many journalists who write under their own name, are very resentful of the freedom enjoyed by the anonymous. They frequently issue taunts and call for their anonymous critics to “put their name” to what they write.
Only someone like Matt, who has apparently never had a job other than blogging, could fail to understand this phenomenon.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
… was because he humiliated a conservative for saying things so stupid that Whelan must have been consciously lying.
Yes.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
“Beetlejuice!”… “Beetlejuice!”
June 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Considering Whelan’s significantly more powerful political connections, the above statement is a freaking joke.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I don’t read Obsidian Wings often, so I don’t know the whole history going back to the Koh dust-up, but as far as I can tell the worst thing Publius said about Whelan was that the latter has been advancing partisan arguments beneath his intelligence and training. That doesn’t strike me as rude or nasty, and certainly not gratuitously.
I don’t read OW that often either but as I understand it was worse than what you say. And for all I know what he was saying was true about Whelan, however I don’t believe Whelan would have reacted the way he did had the attack been as mild as you put it.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Okay, this “Blevins” shit isn’t funny. I know Yglesias finds it cute to ignore the raw sewage that flows through the comments on the blog that bears his name, but blatant defamation ought to be too much even for him, and for CAPAF. Fucking do something about it.
Agreed, please, Matt, and FWIW I’m pretty sure I haven’t made this request before. This seems different.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
second the call to ban whoever is spoofing blevins’ name.
that is seriously evil behavior.
the posts should get deleted, and the ip should get banned. pronto.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
“MBunge, that gives a natural advantage to those like Whelan, who are in a more powerful and stable professional position than your average Pseudonym.”
It is an advantage to both. Public figures like Whelen generally are in more stable and powerful positions but pseudononymous figures like publius don’t have to live up to, by or with whatever they say online AND they can walk away from an online dustup any time they want in a way a public figure cannot.
Mike
June 9th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Ed Whelen is Ed Whelen and what he does online can effect him offline.
Ed Whelan earns two hundred grand a year through his wingnut welfare job. What he does online isn’t going to affect his bank balance one bit, unless it involves calling Sonia Sotomayor an experienced and qualified jurist.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“Considering Whelan’s significantly more powerful political connections, the above statement is a freaking joke.”
If you want to be in the arena, you have to be in the arena and not yell from the crowd with an internet megaphone.
Mike
June 9th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
So who suffers worse from this contretemps, Blevins or Whelen? Is it a cautionary tale for pseudonymous bloggers to watch what they says, or a warning to thin-skinned, real-named bloggers not to engage in acts of petty vengeance lest they harm their own reputations?
June 9th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“Ed Whelan earns two hundred grand a year through his wingnut welfare job. What he does online isn’t going to affect his bank balance one bit”
I don’t believe publius is poverty-stricken and living one paycheck away from being out on the street.
Mike
June 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Considering Whelan’s significantly more powerful political connections, the above statement is a freaking joke.
Wingnut welfare simultaneously accords people like Whelan (and Gaffney) bullshit authority through titles (”Scholar”, “President”) while immunizing them from the repercussions of what they say. If their organization is somehow discredited, another one will pop up to replace it and keep them employed. Only heretics are left to fend for themselves.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Matt’s given name is “Trust Fund Scumbag Yglesias”. I think Petey point that out sometime ago.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I don’t read OW that often either but as I understand it was worse than what you say. And for all I know what he was saying was true about Whelan, however I don’t believe Whelan would have reacted the way he did had the attack been as mild as you put it.
And yet, it’s the truth. The Web pages are still out there if you just had the interest to find out for yourself. Which part of what publius said seems beyond the pale: the link to an exhaustive rebuttal of one of Whelan’s arguments, or the speculation, civilly phrased and ultimately resulting in the more charitable option, on whether Whelan’s indisputable errors are intentional or not?
How surprising and disheartening, that a veteran of the Bush Department of Justice would be so petty and dishonest. I’m sure we’re all shocked.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
If you want to be in the arena, you have to be in the arena and not yell from the crowd with an internet megaphone.
Personally, I try to judge arguments by their merits. I try not to reflexively disagree with anything said by someone I dislike and agree with everything by someone I like. I take it you have a different approach?
June 9th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
” Publius could distance himself from his blogging in a way Whelen cannot, creating an imbalance in any debate between them. If publius wants to be on the same stage as Whelen, he should be willing to suffer under the public spotlight just like Whelen has to.”
Its true that a pseudonym gives you space to be more of a jerk if you want, but in terms of the substance of whatever debate he’s engaging in, his pseudonym doesn’t grant him any special powers, especially since its a consistent identity, its not like he can test drive some half-assed arguments and not see his persona suffer the consequences in terms of credibility etc. At any rate, in the “real world” Ed Whelan does get to spout his half-assed arguments all the time because he’s protected by the right-wing cocoon – he’ll always have a home at NRO no matter what shit he says. Publius’ status as an untenured law professor however…
June 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I don’t believe publius is poverty-stricken and living one paycheck away from being out on the street.
Let’s simplify this: wingnut welfare is structured as a pastiche of academia. It has a tenure system. Whelan has tenure; publius does not. If you’re asserting that having Whelan’s friends make poison-pen remarks about tenure committees is no big deal, then there’s no point talking to you.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Prior to the outing, I agree that John Blevins, law professor, didn’t have to account for the things that publius said online, except to the extent that he cared to (which I believe he did). But a public figure *can* walk away from a dustup anytime they want. Whelan never needed to acknowledge publius (or Volokh) if he didn’t want to, or he could have acknowledged that he wasn’t going to engage them. He could get into an argument and then subsequently decide: “You know, I’m not doing this any more, I don’t think it’s productive and we’re not accomplishing anything. I don’t care if you continue to criticize me or even insult me, I’m out.” This happens. People argue with each other in the pages of national publications, and then the disputes just drop.
And Whelan is a public figure – a guy who’s being paid to write for a national publication, who worked for the OLC, etc. – in a way that Prof. Blevins isn’t, even as Prof. Blevins, even if Blevins were to write in to the letters page of whatever publication or submit articles to whatever academic journal. I’m assuming that MBunge, who signs his posts “Mike,” is a real life person named Mike Bunge, who’s written stuff on the internet for quite a while, not using a pseudonym. You’re still not a public figure, and if I or anyone else was going to get mad at you (regardless of why) and try to find out where you worked and who your family was, that would be grossly inappropriate. I’d still be, in some way, “outing” you, and I’d hope people would call me out for it.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I don’t think this post really does justice to the reasons proferred by Publius to remain anonymous/pseudonymous. Publius’s reasons strike me as eminently reasonable. They have nothing to do with misrepresenting who Publius really was (as Matthew’s next to last paragraph discusses), nor do they have anything to do with providing a “fake” persona as contrasted to a “real” persona (as the last paragrpah discusses). They just have to do with the fact that the off-line persona (which is neither “fake” nor “real” – it just is what it is) might encounter certain difficulties if the on-line persona is connected to it.
(Although I am not an academic as Publius is, my own reasons to remain pseudonymous are similar to his. My “character” here is a “well-known, stable character” with “integrity, influence, a personality, a reputation, social connections, etc., the same as anyone else” who comments – for whatever those characteristics are worth in the commenting community here. But the objections to unmasking that Publius made and I echo aren’t addressed by this fact.)
June 9th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
You’re still not a public figure, and if I or anyone else was going to get mad at you (regardless of why) and try to find out where you worked and who your family was, that would be grossly inappropriate. I’d still be, in some way, “outing” you, and I’d hope people would call me out for it.
You’re an anonymous commenter, Publius was a consistent pseudonymous blogger and Whelan is a public figure. There are differences and Whelan apologized which means he “called himself out for it.” Publius obviously drew blood in his attack on Whelan, who admittedly overreacted.
I just think it undeniable that anonymous commenting enables rude behavior b/c there are no potential consequences. However I don’t thing it’s wrong to want to comment anonymously or blog pseudonymously for whatever reasons.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
As other, smarter-than-MattY people have pointed out, it depends on a variety of factors including conflicts of interest and the degree of snarkiness of the person. And, linking something to someone’s real name or a site they run is the only way to hold them accountable for their statements. Someone who uses a nom de blog can always just open up a new blog under a different name if they’re discredited. That goes triple for commenters; many of those here and at other sites use sockpuppets.
So, just as an example, if I happen to reveal the real names of some of those who do little more than post ad homs about me, and I provide examples of some of the things they’ve said in a post on my site, I don’t think too many people are going to shed a tear.
For instance, one person who’s at least been involved in smears against me is a corporate lawyer for a certain shopping channel in Florida. Another works for a University in KY; I’m currently looking into which one.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Except that the blogsphere changed that. If you don’t like it, why are you here?
Whelan’s retaliation was a resort to older rules, which were the only way he could “win.”
June 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Re: But our various “in real life” self-presentations (to a boss, to a first date, to family, to friends, to people we run into at a high school reunion) involve artifice as well.
What the f*ck? This is postmodernist Georgetown cocktail party philosophizing run amock. Put down the Foucault and the bong, and pick up some Plato, Yglesias.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Having learned the true name of what you call the kangaroo, it has done my bidding for sometime now. Admittedly, there are other animals I’d rather command, but so far no luck…
June 9th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
No, it’s a common-sense observation by someone who actually gets out once in a while.
… and pays attention.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Someone who uses a nom de blog can always just open up a new blog under a different name if they’re discredited.
As opposed to changing the primary domain name of their blog overnight, because operating under, say, “TheWackoLonerBlog” isn’t conveying high seriousness? Or creating a bunch of other domains that just happen to be run off the same server and link to one another?
Just wondering, hypothetically of course.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Someone on wingnut welfare can always just stay on wingnut welfare, even if they’re discredited.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Actually, I’m a consistent pseudonymous blogger, except that nobody reads my blog except like five personal friends. Which is how I want it, by and large, but I’ve used this handle for all my online posting, on my own blog or commenting on others, for a few years.
And I *do* think that some people feel emboldened by anonymity or pseudonymity to say things they wouldn’t otherwise say. I also feel that people posting with their real names say things on the internet that they probably wouldn’t say in person; I’ve certainly received a lot more insult online than I have in “real life”. I also admit to having given more, though I try really hard to conduct myself as I do in meatspace. But I don’t think what publius wrote really falls under the category of “wouldn’t have the gonads to say it if he weren’t pseudonymous” except to the extent that the whole phenomenon of publius blogging would, which is part of the point. Again, the actual “insult” to Whelan is paper think. I’m not surprised Whelan felt insulted, but if you believe as publius does (and, for the record, as I do), the options are that Whelan is either an idiot or a hack. (The point being that the dispute isn’t over a get-wrong-able issue of fact or intellectual dispute, like “Who was the 14th president of the US?” or “How does the 14th Amendment incorporate federal law to the states?”)
June 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I think Dan Kervick (20) gets to the core of the issue: on some issues, the author is liable to piss off people who are in a position to fuck her/his shit up… even if the discussion is civil, reasonable, true, and something that needs airing in public.
Although Primary Colors isn’t necessarily the best example, it’s still instructive to note that Mr. Klein was fired when outed.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Whelan admitted to being “uncharitable” to Publius. Petulant and vengeful is more like it. What he did was considerably worse than passing a beggar in the street, or putting a slanted construction on someone’s words (both of which are no doubt par for the course in his life).
June 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
A better example than Primary Colors is Groklaw during the SCO/Linux copyright lawsuit/extortion attempt. A number of attempts were made to expose the physical incarnation of “Pamela Jones” so that the author could be silenced via barratry. Her work was to “merely” do the legal research which enabled the layperson to follow the case, or a potential whistle-blower to see where evidence they might hold would fit in.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Matt Y:
And plenty of people who do blog under their real names are not as forthcoming with biographical information. But the point is that if the idea is that someone is actively misrepresenting themselves on the Internet—blogging about climate change without ever mentioning that you work in the PR department for a coal company—that’s clearly a problem
This isn’t some kind of novel modern internet problem. Nineteenth century politicians routinely attacked people and “floated” ideas via newspaper columns and political tracts under pseudonyms. Jackson, Webster, Clay, Fillmore all did this. Not to mention that the Federalist papers were written under pseudonyms, this is a problem as old as the written word. How does the internet change this?
June 9th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I’m not anonymous, but my name is pretty common. Some “protection”. Still, back in usenet days, I had someone menace me: my menacer knew my boss. And did.
Such is fame, said Keith, who is quite a wit.
Or this:
Augusta Gregory seated at her great ormolu table,
Her eightieth winter approaching: “Yesterday he threatened my life.
I told him that nightly from six to seven I sat at this table,
The blinds drawn up”
June 9th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
There are also self serving reasons to blog under your real name. Say you’re trying to be a writer and your aspiration is to be hired by a regularly paying think tank or newspaper. Maybe you’re a lawyer and your blog amounts to an advertisement for your paid services.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
24AheadDotCom\,
“For instance, one person who’s at least been involved in smears against me is a corporate lawyer for a certain shopping channel in Florida. Another works for a University in KY; I’m currently looking into which one.”
That is just plain creepy.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Now here’s a topic I’m living, having been a pseudonymous blogger about as long as Matt’s been an “outed” one.
The arguments against pseudonyms are incoherent at best. There are rarely real conflicts of interest, because conflicts of interest usually revolve around false credibility, and an obvious pseudonym like “publius” or my own has no credibility that it has not earned. And while there is the possibility of abuse, abuse can come just as easily from a named figure with the resources to defend himself, or from anarchic hordes like Anonymous. It’s the nature of the medium. And if you change your nom de blogue, you have to build up that credibility all over again.
In almost every case I’ve seen, the people who are most thoroughly against pseudonyms are the ones who have absolutely nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by attaching their names to their arguments. Some already have a soapbox and the cachet to get away with saying anything they please—-like your typical opinion columnist or journalistic gadfly.
(Several blogging lawyers seem to fit into this category. They don’t fear getting sued, and in fact relish the possibility of suing their opponents, especially outside the American context. Most “accountability” arguments boil down to “I like SLAPP suits.”)
The rest are generally making tiresome, predictable arguments that are in service of their “team.” They don’t need to worry about being criticized by anybody that could affect them. As long as they keep bloggin’ for the team, they’ll have cover: if they’re good at it, they get valuable cash and prizes!
Sorry, but arguments against pseudonymity really say more about the arguer than the target.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
On the other hand, blogging under your own name is probably more rewarding. Atrios aside, I doubt Matt would have achieved the success he has if he had blogged under the name “democritus” or some such thing.
There are always tradeoffs.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
All good points, Matt, but I wanted to mention something you may not have thought about.
Wikipedia makes pseudonyms impossible! Once you rise to the level of notoriety where there’s a wikipedia article about you, it becomes editorially impossible to prevent the person from being outed. (Sock puppets don’t divert people for very long).
Once an alias is announced on wikipedia, it cannot be undone.
So the trick is staying under the radar from major media for as long as possible.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
ThatPirateGuy: yes, it is “plain creepy” that some people follow me around when I leave comments at other sites and then post smears about me, especially since they’re too cowardly to post under either their real name or a website.
P.S. With people who use their real names, things like this and this are worth obtaining (do a find for my domain name).
June 9th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I note, by the by, that Matthew was in favor of outing gay Republicans a couple of years ago. Guess outing gay Republicans is somehow different than outing liberal bloggers.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Guess outing gay Republicans is somehow different than outing liberal bloggers.
Yep, it really is!
June 9th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I used to think there was great virtue, and no downside, to posting under my real name. And then someone took a bunch of blog posts and sent them to my employer trying to impugn my character and get me fired — unsuccessfully, but only after an anxiety-inducing process. So, now, the nom de blog.
June 9th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I used to think there was great virtue, and no downside, to posting under my real name. And then someone took a bunch of blog posts and sent them to my employer trying to impugn my character and get me fired — unsuccessfully, but only after an anxiety-inducing process. So, now, the nom de blog.
This is why I don’t begrudge anyone for using a nom de blog. People are such jerks, the person who did that is the lowest of the low.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Al, as per usual, only tells part of the story.
(He’s so obvious that sometimes I think he’s some strange kind of agent provocateur. If you are one, Al, don’t. Whatever you’re doing — either way — really isn’t worth it. We’re not a jury swayed by rhetorical stratagems.)
June 9th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Reading the Corner, it was pretty clear that the reason Ed Whalen felt compelled to reconsider is position on outing bloggers was that he discovered a frequent Corner blogger, Ed Dunphy, uses a pseudonym and wrote a post at 3:00 am today literally begging his readers and nemises not to out him. I see no principle at work here other than that Whalen accidentally fragged somebody on his own “team”.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Sorry, that’s Jack Dunphy (not Ed) who is the pseudonymous Corner blogger begging to have is anonymity protected from people like Ed Whalen.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
the fact that my name is “Matthew Yglesias” is a particularly interesting or important fact about me (indeed, it’s not even on my birth certificate, though it is my real legal name since I was a few days old).
I was wondering what all the fuss was about. Matt, dude, you should now that some very angry people out there on on to you, and they have billboards.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:47 am
1. The real worl existence isn’t more important than the virtual because of artifice. It’s about a sense of space and interaction with nature.
2. It is true there does not have to be an identity between the real Yglesias and the blogging character, but there is a line of influence. Judge Sotomayor’s famous remarks that have been misinterpreted as racist linked Sonia, daughter of Puerto Rican migrants to New York City, with the Honorable Judge Sotomayor for the U.S. Court of Appeals, who are the same person but could operate in completely different ways.
3. This may surprise anybody (who cares to read the comments threads on posts that are almost a day old), but Moral Panicker is not really the name of the person typing these words. Moral Panicker and he generally share the same opinions, and Moral Panicker shares some of his author’s experiences, but Moral Panicker is very self-conscious in the way he writes because of how blog comments work as a genre.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
In 2006, I revealed that the Asia Times columnist “Spengler” was a former close associate of Lyndon Larouche, because that’s relevant in assessing his complex and excited theories about foreign policy, but I refused to publish his name, because that would be an invasion of his privacy.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/10/so-who-is-ex-larouchie-foreign-policy.html
That would seem to be the optimal way to treat this matter.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Now “Spengler” was one odd duck. Half the time I didn’t know if Hector was channeling him or if he was channeling Hector, since their viewpoints of the world seem pretty similar except that Spengler was not so much stuck in the year 1250. I find all theories that pin their worldview around “culture creation” to pretty suspect.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
The outing game is so tired. It would really just be easier if these folks wrote, “They are right, I am wrong and now I am going to create a diversion.” It really would!