Online Anonymity

[koganbot]

Strange post by hilzoy at Obsidian Wings where she says she'd always imagined that by posting under "hilzoy" she was indicating to her readers that that's how she'd like to be known on blogs, as opposed to being referred to by her real name. She gets a bit pissy at Slate for publishing her actual identity.*

Anyway, the strangeness isn't that she wants her blog identity to remain disconnected from her identity offline (though I wonder what right she thinks she has to anonymity if she's going to blog about stuff that's related to what she gets paid to teach and write about), but rather her assuming that her readers would take her use of a screen name as a signal that she's suppressing her real name and wants everyone to go along. That seems pretty naive, and also misunderstands Web practice - unless it's my corner of the Web that's strange. Nearly all the people I run into online post under screen names when they're on message boards or blogs, and I doubt that more than a few of them are doing so to conceal their offline identities. Rather, they're expressing themselves, just as they would by having more than one icon or by wearing different-colored socks on different days. Actually, using one's full name seems a bit odd, like referring to oneself as "Mister" while everyone else is using nicknames: the reasons I used my real name on ilX from the get-go are that I wanted to be better known and that there'd be a conflict of interest in my posting about music and rock criticism and other rock critics while concealing who I am. But as I said, most people who use screen names in my online worlds aren't doing so to suppress their identities. I often know their real names, and where I don't I could probably find out easily enough.

Yesterday I read Andrew Rosenthal in the NY Times saying "When I'm scanning comments (and I scan the comments on every Opinion section article that offers comment), I tend to read the ones with names attached and ignore the ones with screen names. I have a lot of interest in what John Krouskoff of New City has to say, and really none in what spatula187 (to make up one printable screen name) has to say." I realize there's a difference in posting at a high-profile place like the Times or YouTube or People etc. and posting on poptimists, but my guess is still that most of the people who use screen names at those places are doing so out of the expressive habit, not for the anonymity (though no doubt some probably feel freer to act like douchebags than they would if they were using their real names).

*Of course, if you become better-known under your blog name, perhaps you're suppressing your actual identity when you use your given name.

Comments

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

I think what's being argued for -- not with any great clarity -- is the retention of a space *between* Actual Name as Found on Passport and genuine anonymity: stable pseudonymity, in fact (and an acknowledgment, such as Rosenthal doesn't give, or show any sign of getting, that a pseudonym doesn't strip an idea of authority? And -- perhaps more to the point -- that a name which comes, journalistically, with a job title and a professional position, has a False Appeal to Authority built into it?)

Hilzoy glosses this in terms of her students -- not wanting it to be too easy to find out who she is (and adapt their work accordingly?) -- but I slightly feel this is a pretext (bcz she doesn't explain it or expand it). It's not that she doesn't want people to know who she is -- more that she wants it be be a bit of work to find out, and that this imposition of the work be respected and recognised as a value? (But how it's a value is not spelled out -- I think because it's an evolving idea.)

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i don't think it does misunderstand web practice, actually, even in our part of the web: on ilx it was considered unseemly to out people's real names (that didn't already use them) without some sense that they wouldn't mind -- because we were all aware that some people were much more hinky about it than others

i would say this is the default position of web communities -- don't simply make free with other people's personal info, even if it's somewhat known to the locals... and hilzoy's antagonist is doing just this (some of the commenters describe the move as being manipulative in a passive-aggressive way: i haven't read the slate piece, so can't comment on the fairness of this as a judgment, but certainly a shift in register of naming can be a covert act of argumentative battle, just as a full reading of your opponent's honorifics can be a hilariously bad-faith way of taking them down

(i think there's a whole complicated set of complaints mulched into hilzoy's post: another -- i think she expands on this in the comments -- is that the naming-without-permission privileges the personal story of Someone Important -- viz [hilzoy's real name, academic
position attached] -- over the personal story of Just Some Poster, Name Withheld: the politics of this is obviously arguable, as is the reading of amlicious intentionality, but the issue is certainly there...)

[koganbot]

Yes, you're being more nuanced than I was, especially your last comment about her being, as hilzoy, Just Some Poster. I generally would ask before revealing someone's birth-certificate identity - or I mostly wouldn't ask, would simply assume that he or she wouldn't mind, but if I wasn't sure I'd give the matter at least a second's thought. In some circumstances I would reveal the name whether or not I thought the person would mind: If hilzoy were to say something noteworthy as hilzoy, and I were reporting what she said, say for a newspaper, I'd consider it my responsibility to inform people of who she really is (btw, last year, when I began reading Obsidian Wings in the runup to the election, it took me about ten seconds to find out her real-life identity once I started googling).

I still think she's being naive, but I uncharacteristically didn't read the comment thread, which I'll go do now.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i think the post arises from clashing assumptions about propriety in different modes of media (and a rather belated awareness that there IS a clash): grown-up old school journalism vs blogospherical community discussion -- there's a lot of tension and attitude between these two worlds, even though (or because) they overlap, about who's "doing it right" (ie whose rules of engagement and etiquette and professional standards best serve the polity-at-large)

brad delong a while back wrote in amusement that he had never imained when he started his blog that he'd be nodding along to and seriously discussing a post by someone called "lizardbreath" with the same admiration and respect he'd have for, i dunno, mark thoma [or similar disciplinary colleague]

(lizardbreath is a poster at ObWi and unfogged and crooked timber, there's quite a lot of overlap between them)

[koganbot]

Gah! Now I've read some of the backstory and there's too much of it and I'm not going to read further. But for what it's worth I don't think there's any clear online etiquette any more than there's clear offline etiquette. Relationships and situations develop their own conventions, though not from scratch (there's a family resemblance to previous relationships and situations); often all parties "get" the habits and conventions without anyone stating them or without the conventions being statable or fixed [think of paradigms here!], sometimes they don't, and sometimes when there are fights one party or another will get all upset because someone is breaking unspoken "agreements." Happens plenty of times in romance.

In any event, there are two things at issue here. (1) Does someone's posting under a screen name send a signal that the person doesn't want those posts to be associated with her real name? The answer is, um, depends on the situation and the community, etc. - though it often sends a signal that the person might want those posts disassociated from her real name. (Which I think is what you're saying above.) (2) Is it a violation to reveal someone's real name if she doesn't want us to? Well, that's a judgment call, again depending on the circumstances. I would generally follow someone's wishes unless I felt I had a good reason not to, but that doesn't mean that someone should expect me to, especially if she doesn't know me well and we're among millions of people bobbing around in an online world. And also, what constitutes a good reason?

I think hilzoy may be trying to do the impossible: be a public intellectual under two different names while not wanting the two names associated (or at least without wanting her activities as hilzoy to screw up her interaction with her students). And if she chooses to dispute with people in public, I don't think she gets to tell them how to identify her or tell them to limit their responses to addressing the activities of only one of her personas at a time. So I think Linda Hirshman was within her rights. And the issue here isn't simply the one between old media and new. (That doesn't mean I'd have done what Hirshman did or that I quite get her rationale. But as I've said, there seems to be more backstory than I'm ever going to pay attention to.) Also, what I've just said is hilzoy-specific, not Internet general.

(The thing I worry about in addressing you and Tom isn't how to refer to you but just that my initial responses to your posts tend to be with where I disagree. I think you two are pretty good at letting stuff roll off your back, but sometimes I worry that I don't know my own strength.)

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i think yr right that hilzoy response demonstrated naivety: i think there is a diff between the way the various interlocking internet communitiers wd treat this issue -- cf jesurgislac's responses -- and how a journaist unhip to the net will treat it BUT i think hilzoy is pampered that she didn't think this thru long ago -- she has CONSIDERABLE off-net pedigree (i own a book by her mum!) (which i have not really read) and there's no WAY this isn't catnip to a journalist

semi-related: in one of the recent crooked timber debates a regular long-time minor contributor unmasked himself unexpectedly, bcz the discussion unexpectedly referred to him -- "george sciabbala aka geo" -- which was (to me) as awesome and funny as the woody allen scene with mcluhan... geo had been commenting, not uninterestingly, forEVER as one of us nobodies, and suddenly stepped up and turned out to be the person the book was about...

[koganbot]

Well, I may be demonstrating naiveté myself in overlooking how much hilzoy might be in a difficult position as a blogger. She was wisely low-key in dealing with the utter schmuck who was trying to troll her and use her parents to invalidate her. (Hirshman on the other hand didn't bring up hilzoy's parents, just identified hilzoy by occupation and position.) One reason for her to blog under a pseudonym could be so that the prestige of her parents and grandparents isn't an issue. And both you and I hate the way papers and mags try to make the prestige and authority of what they cover adhere to the journal itself. But nonetheless, online or off, new media or old, I simply don't see where the community should be given the right to dictate to others that they have to suppress info on who I am. Or I do see where - see petronia's post below - but I don't see the "rule" as all-encompassing.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

that's a bit what i was getting at with "old-school media": i think journalists are trained -- should be trained -- to say "sorry, no can do, we're not friends, no conditions apply, i am the reader's servant, and this is something THEY want to know": this is where i think hilzoy's surprise is a bit naive... why would journalism bother respecting this? it's not as if blogworld has exercised leverage yet (what leverage does it have? not much but not none)

however, this IS routinely compromised by two things -- one is these days a semi-public scandal, the trades we know journalists make for high-end access, whether it's get the tom cruise interview, or not to comromise yr paper's regular seat at the white houser press conference -- and two is the (unspoken?) trades a writer may make with the (out) crew he admires and wants to be in with

(hirshman isn't really a journalist, and salon isn't in this sense old-school media -- it's all online -- so this is even further complicated and blurred)

[koganbot]

I am delighted that I am not the only one who regularly confuses Slate and Salon.

I wouldn't be surprised if a frequent reason people use screen names is that they don't want their employers to know that they are posting during working hours.

[koganbot]

Sentence I would like to see in the NY Times:

The source asked not to be identified because she had called in sick to work that day.

[koganbot]

Even if Hirshman had posted the original review on a blog, why should she care what hilzoy wants, especially given that it was hilzoy who originally commented on Hirshman and not vice versa? Not a rhetorical question, since if I were in Hirshman's position I might care. Or I might not. Depends on the circumstances. There's my parenthetical wonderment above, about hilzoy: "I wonder what right she thinks she has to anonymity if she's going to blog about stuff that's related to what she gets paid to teach and write about" (and yes, it's pseudonymity not anonymity). I mean, if I blog under a pseudonym and I can potentially analyze and critique ANYONE IN THE WORLD, why should A PARTICULAR SOMEONE IN THE WORLD WHOM I'M WRITING ABOUT care what I want?

don't simply make free with other people's personal info, even if it's somewhat known to the locals...

Well, "personal info" covers a range here (Hirshman stuck with real name and faculty position, which are hardly private). But you can get a situation where insiders know and outsiders don't, e.g., I remember some people on ilX doing the online equivalent of snickering at a newbie who got Jess's gender wrong. Jess and Ethan switched monikers a number of times, and I don't think they cared about anonymity/pseudonymity in the least, but if they had that would have been their problem, because they had absolutely no right to it given that they regularly flamed people and started fights (often flames and fights of high quality, that I empathized with), in fact if someone published those guy's phone numbers and penis sizes it probably would have been justified. I think Kate Masonic Boom did care about her anonymity and pseudonymity and given her behavior she had no more right to it than Jess and Ethan did, though in general I also believed that she should be treated with kindness. On the ilX thread about Chuck's firing, and ex-New Times employee, writing under a pseudonym, called the New Times brass "bullies at the cocktail hour." I have what I think is a good idea who this poster was, and if I'd known for certain I wouldn't have outed him, since I was sympathetic with his viewpoint. But if I had been friends with Lacey et al. at New Times and hadn't been sympathetic to the poster I'd have no qualms about outing him. And I don't see where Lacey et al. wouldn't have had a right to identify the guy by name, if they knew the name, or why identifying him would become some violation merely because he was posting on a message board rather than writing for a publication.

A reason I might choose pseudonymity would be aesthetic: to play with tones of voice, to unleash something in my prose that would be less likely to happen under the name "Frank Kogan." And I suppose that someone who valued the writing would honor my pseudonymity. In WMS #6 I not only wrote under my own name but under "Al Capone" and "Kylie Minogue's Bra-Strap," though there was never any question that it was me. But here's the point: if, under my pseudonym, I'm critiquing the hell out of people, running cultural analyses etc., I don't see what right I have to expect people to honor my pseudonym. I might want them to, and if they admire the prose they might choose to, but I don't see why I should expect them to. Especially why should I expect the people I analyze to honor my pseudonym? It's not as if I'm a whistle-blower or that I'll get jailed for my opinions.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

is there an american equivalent to the phrase "not cricket"? that's the level i take hilzoy's complaint to be on -- that within the context of a serious political discussion (given quite sharp differences sharply expressed, but ostensibly mutually respectful), hirshman had done something that, while it was not against any established rules of debate, nevertheless seemed (to hilzoy) to be, well, infra dig, "not done, old fellow", to use some other old-times english-gentleman phrases of deprecation... as if hirshman has lowered the tone of the debating club rather than in any sense departed from the strict rules

[koganbot]

I think most Americans understand "not cricket." But (1) is hilzoy right? and (2) is cricket right? What does Judge Dubdobdee think? Also, hilzoy is saying that she imagined that simply by posting as hilzoy she'd made her wishes known. But anyway, again, why should Hirshman care about those wishes, or about what's cricket? (Not a rhetorical question.) And don't readers of Slate, some of whom aren't regulars to hilzoy's blog neighborhood, have an interest in knowing a piece of info - hilzoy's identity - that a good deal of people inside that 'hood do know? (That's also not a rhetorical question.) Why is it cricket to critique people while writing under a pseudonym? (Again, not a rhetorical question, and I might well defend hilzoy's use of a pseudonym, if I knew the reasons.) (And also I may well be wrong about what the regulars in hilzoy's blog 'hood know and don't know.)

(Some posters were suggesting that Hirshman was simply being clumsy. But anyway, I'm not particularly trying to come up with a "whose right?" in relation to hilzoy and Hirshman, though in this instance hilzoy seems to be the better writer/thinker.)

[edgeofwhatever.livejournal.com]

Well, it is nuanced, though -- there are also questions of whether you should reveal people's other screen names, or link their screen names on one service to screen names on another, etc. I agree with dubdobdee in that I think not-revealing is the default position of web communities -- but I don't agree that there's conflict between old-school jouralism and the Internet.

Because talking about this as an either/or -- either you use a screen name, or you use your "real" name -- is disingenuous. Most services, including iLX, allow you to use a screen name and a "real" name simultaneously, and some actually require it. (You aren't allowed to leave the "name" field blank on your Livejournal and Twitter profiles, for example.) So it's never a matter of using a screen name simply because you prefer the expressiveness of it -- you can express yourself via screen name while also using your real name, and the absence of a real name on Livejournal, or Twitter, or iLX means that this person does not want his/her real name revealed.

And why would you feel you had a right or responsibility to reveal my real name? Even if I said something newsworthy -- does it matter who I "really" am? Is my identity of consequence? And even if it is -- hey, you know, the identity of Deep Throat was probably pretty important, but he was allowed his anonymity.

[koganbot]

Deep Throat was allowed his anonymity by the people who promised it, but journalists who weren't using him as a source certainly would have been within their rights to reveal it if they'd found it out. I don't think he's relevant to this particular conversation, however.

The one time I did use your name in print, referring to something you'd posted as "girlboymusic," I asked you in advance. I don't have in mind a scenario where I'd feel it was my responsibility to identify you in particular by your real name. But here's a hypothetical example involving someone else:

Suppose livejournal user freakytigger posts a long, brilliant analysis of the messageboard ILX. In writing about this analysis myself (whether in print, online, on blog, etc.) I would feel it my responsibility to point out that freakytigger is Tom Ewing, the man who started ILX but who also no longer has a lot to do with ILX. I think this is pretty obvious, why I'd feel it my responsibility to identify him, whatever his wishes on the subject. (I don't, by the way, assume it's my responsibility to have revealed this information right now to you, but I did anyway, obviously, for the sake of my example, and I'm pretty sure Tom would not mind, though if he does I'll find out. How do I know he wouldn't mind? He's never told me, after all. I don't know. I just do. (Well, I could identify reasons, including the moniker "freakytigger" itself, but none of those reasons would be decisive.))

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i: i am drunk via anglo-saxon MEAD so everything i say does not count
ii: old school journalism = we tell the readers whether you mind or not, your needs mean
nothing to us (with the issue of granting anonymity a bug not a feature) ("deep throat"was how the journalists sold the info to their editor, not to the reader)
iii: it's about a guarantee of veracity: "area man, 23" for some reason is considered to anchor this, where "blogger, age who knows isn't"
iv: contra girlboymusic i think there IS a shift, which is from authority via "where you at" (old school) to authority via "what you wrote" (interwebs) -- this is what i was getting at (old-school here a term of relative deprecation); the shift is not yet complete, hence hilzoy zgigged one way and her interlocutor the other...

[koganbot]

i think there IS a shift, which is from authority via "where you at" (old school) to authority via "what you wrote" (interwebs)

This is very idealistic, but I doubt that it's true. (But even if it were only 1/20th true, that would be an interesting shift. Cf. "A Trip To The Mountains" in Real Punks.) But my question would still be: if I'm choosing anonymity but also choosing to dispute with people AND my real life identity is relevant, why should Internet etiquette say that I get to control what information you reveal about me? Especially if, both as a blogger AND in real life, I've got more prestige than you have. (I don't know if that last sentence is true of the hilzoy/Hirshman convo, since I'd never heard of hilzoy 'til several months ago or Hirshman until yesterday.)

Seem to be two contrary motions: people going anono so that power and prestige not an issue, and people going anono in order to give themselves license (license not necessarily always bad, nor is power and prestige always bad, necessarily).

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

it may not stay true -- probably won't -- but i think there is a certain force to this separation at the moment: it's a matter of time invested really -- you can either devote yr time to hustling in the world of real journalism, or to getting the feel and powerflow of an online community (by participating or just by lurking, but not both -- a non-lurker would be quite vulnerable i think; and how would a lurker be earning a living?)

in five years time, the gap will be less and the overlap much more, and pseudonyms will be routinely cited without loss of veracity in mainstream print media -- for the moment there's a significant gap, which is to say a voltage drop and therefore a current flow

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

My current area of conflict over this is in avatars. On Twitter, as on LiveJournal and Tumblr, I have settled on this sock puppet as my avatar. I use either my real name, or the name of the website with which I've been primarily identified for a decade. The puppet was homemade by my wife, it's one of a kind, and it's my hand in it. But I still get a certain amount of suspicion and beef for not wanting to show my face* in an avatar. Some places simply won't *allow* you to use something like a sockpuppet. In Tumblr and LJ use of non-self icons is completely normal, expected even: in Twitter it's much more conflicted, and a lot of people's first tip for using Twitter is to use your real face.

*the reason I don't do this is that I don't like any icon size photos of me that don't also have someone else in. Also the puppet stands out nicely. On Facebook, where I only friend ppl I know, I use an icon of me and Lytton but I'd feel hinky about doing this on Twitter.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'd assume that it's absolutely for the anonymity. I'm not really anonymous anywhere, but that's not deliberate, if I'd known from the start where my web life would lead, I'd have definitely wanted to conceal my identity. As it is, I post here under my REAL NAME (I only ever got an LJ to keep up with one particular friend - who I haven't spoken to in years! - and never envisaged posting on it myself), and most other places under a screen name v easily linked to me (even the tennis board which none of you lot know about).

I'd prefer anonymity because I've always thought of the internet as a sketch pad for my ideas and writing, where I want to have the freedom to say potentially silly or uninformed shit, which is fine except for the people who stalk you around and save that up to use against you. It's like how I don't let people see the notes I take at gigs. But...what's done is done, it hasn't exactly harmed me, and God bless friends-locks.

[koganbot]

I think that I myself am a better critic with a better understanding of music for being allowed to read your sketches and your silly uninformed shit. I'd say you should err on the side of putting your shit out there, since the stalkers aren't the only ones who see it.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

In the music criticism community (is there such a thing?) this doesn't seem to be a big deal, but in other online circles - for instance sci-fi and fantasy fiction writers, particularly as that group overlaps into amateur fiction and fanfiction writers, and comes into conflict with publishers and editors - this is a huge, huge, HUGE deal. And Obsidian Wings is somewhat bordering that crowd, isn't it? If hilzoy comes from fan culture originally, it would probably cone as a rude shock to her that this would not be respected by a mainstream publication.

In fanfiction writing, this is usually a huge deal, since people are often publishing sexual stuff they don't necessarily want real life friends, family, and co-workers to come across. I'm pretty shameless when it comes to that, but it's a personal time sort of thing. So this LJ account is delisted from Google, and although pretty much everyone knows me as "Sabina", my real name isn't stated anywhere. *g* OTOH the Tumblr and the sabina_vs_world Twitter account are intended to be completely public and tied to my real life identity (also linked from my Facebook, etc.). It's not too hard to get from one to the other, but I do enforce a layer of separation.

(If you feel like reading all of rydra_wong's links to find out what happened there, good effing luck.)

[koganbot]

I don't know enough about Obsidian Wings or hilzoy to answer your questions (and would like to know more, since they seem well worth my while), but if there's any fanfic connection it isn't apparent from the little I've seen. Appears to be mostly social issues and politics. If they're writing lots about the s3Xor, I've not managed to see it.

But the thing is, in regard to hilzoy, if I'm a professor at a prestigious university and I've got a book published in my field AND I'm a blogger on political and social issues that aren't far from my field AND you've written something on a social issue AND I've chosen to post a lengthy response and critique of what you've written, why should I expect you to honor my pseudonym when replying back? Why shouldn't you accurately identify - for the reader - the profession and prominence of the person you're having the back-and-forth with? There may be more to this particular situation than I know, but it doesn't seem as if hilzoy's private life is being invaded or a secret life is being revealed. Also, the moniker "hilzoy" is close enough to her real name that a casual reader might well assume that she's not trying to keep her identities separate.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

Well, as per your thread with dubdobdee above, it may be precisely her position/prominence/history she's trying to get away from, for whatever reason. And according to the internet mores I was taught (those of SFF/media/anime fandom), this is precisely why anyone goes to post on the Internet under a pseudonym - it's not like changing the colour of your socks, it really is to create an alternate identity that will have stability through time and its own alternate history and social circle that don't relate to your "real life". You can change your handle, but what you would then tie the new handle back to is your old handle. Not to say I don't know the real name of people I've met online - I do, and have met many of them. But I would have to be very certain before referring to them on LJ by the name I address them with offline.

I do agree that hilzoy was absolutely naive in expecting that a journalist from a mainstream publication would honour this, but cultural mores aren't logical, so it doesn't surprise me that she would have gotten PO'd at it either. (I haven't really gone into the backstory, so I'm just assuming she learnt this set of assumptions/rules from somewhere, even if it's not SFF.)

Anyway, as dubdobdee points out this is something that journalism has to contend with now. There are all sorts of issues... the last time I saw negative fan backlash from an "outing" was when NME Online quoted a bunch of (fairly personal) posts Graham Coxon had made to the official Blur BBS. Problem is, dude posts under a pseud, had never outright identified himself, and despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence there's really no hard proof it was him and not someone pretending to be him.

The Rise Of The Hink

[koganbot]

Number of times I've read the word "hinky" on this thread = 2

Number of times I'd previously read, seen, or heard the word "hinky" = 0

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i: where i got hinky from = american cop shows
ii: times i have got hinky stopped by sub editors less awesome than me = all of them

[koganbot]

My knowledge of American cop shows must be deficient. But I swear, I watched Hill Street Blues regularly for a while there. Perhaps I did not listen well enough. The only word I associate with it is "Dogbreath."

[koganbot]

When I reviewed Batman for the Australian Smash Hits I called Jack Palance an "old pug," but the editor got rid of this.