My impression is that software requires a user ID, and it's even easier for the software to have this as an artificial entity. I don't necessarily think of it, then, as a disguise. I use my real name where I can, but as far as I know, no one at TPM Cafe cares enough about who I am to investigate me, and I wouldn't know the difference if someone else used a real name either.

I did enjoy an article in the business section of The Times today about a dating service that claims to guarantee its members have no criminal record. That seemed to set the bar for a potential match rather low, I thought, but then Irangate criminals have forged the Bush foreign policy. 

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

I totally agree. People like me and you put our names out along with our views. Readers research us, point to supposed inconsistences and sometimes resort to nasty personal attacks all while they hide behind some silly nom de blog.
Of course, there is no way we can force anyone to use a real name anyway. So I doubt there is much we can do.
Except to say that we, the "name" bloggers" will not seriously engage with readers who won't use their names. For instance, I have this silly adversary out there who signs everything "Brad The Dad." How can I remotely respect someone who hides under such a childish name. So I don't.
I tend to be more respectful to the people who sign their own names because they have the courage of their convictions.

A few of us -- maybe one or two -- don't have tenured positions that protect us in the event we say something our employer, or someone of influence in our employment situation, doesn't care for. As someone who has participated in the firing and discipline of several people for things they said on message boards, I think anyone who isn't retired or doesn't otherwise have some kind of bulletproof source of income would be stupid to use their real name online, particularly on a politically oriented message board. Again, that's for those few people -- those one or two -- among us who don't have the tenure system protecting us.

In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace

The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer

I used to comment under my name, and listed my professional credentials, as I often comment on issues related to my profession (clinical psychologist and psychiatric nurse practitioner). I recently changed to an anonymous username, because I now work for a state institution. I anticipated possible problems for myself and/or my supervisors if I continued posting under my name, especially given that I often offered opinions relevant to my work. That's why I made the change. I certainly see your point, but in this day and age, I have to say I think you're being a bit naive to think that comments under one's name couldn't have potentially damaging repercussions. Bloggers who post on issues relevant to their work routinely use aliases for the same reason. For example, TPM's David Kurtz posted as DK when he was still working for a law firm, and the same goes for Publius of Obsidian Wings.

I would just like to say that I discovered Greenland and am speaking to you from Valhalla.

Having a free idenity can only give you that feeling of self worth and more over a feeling of moral support. Giving your self a free name is a form of anti-suicide for more people involing stages and theater scripts. I'm not highlighting the fact that you have more signs of free sucide and a least amount of free swing and open sex in the same areas given to us by the same people.

I have used Libertine everywhere I've been on-line.  It expresses my philosophy on politics, civil liberties and life in general.  I have my personal info in my bio page here...video store, owner, golf, bowling, etc.  In fact I have my pic on my bio page.  My name is John.  So what more info would one need?  My last name?  My address?  My home and work phone #'s?  If some here, including Messers Etzioni and Rosenberg, don't want to engage me in discussion because I have a user name here that isn't the same as my birth name...it is their perogative.

Much ado about nothing imo...

In the early days of resource-sharing networks that preceded today's Internet, including ARPANET, BITNET, X.25 user groups, USENET, etc., it was relatively hard to get access, and almost never without some type of organizational sponsorship. People used their names as IDs, or had IDs easily tracked back to names; anyone with whom I communicated as AD03 at the US Department of Labor knew my name.

These were principally research and academic communities, which tend to be tolerant. There were different standard of behavior in newsgroups in different hierarchies. Flaming was not likely in .comp or .sci professional groups, but more likely in .soc or .talk.

I recognize some people may need to hide identities, but I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that various forums will scale, and avoid collapsing from trolling, etc., only if there are verifiable pseudonyms. I won't get into the technical way this could be done, but, essentially, you have to sign in to a site with a pseudonym that is tamper-resistant, with the signin process having some reasonably strong means of authenticating that you are the one and only known "Observer" or "Publius".

Newsgroup readers and email clients, for years, have had the ability to filter out people or subjects not of interest, or likely to be flames. Sooner or later, I suspect such filtering capability will be necessary for blog clients.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

At one point I wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper using my own name and they also printed the city I lived in. I got at least one threatening call because of it and on another occasion I got a threatening letter. So that's why I prefer to use a nom de plume. The thought is the important thing, besides, not the individual from whom it comes.

There seems to be a general lack of appreciation among the professional intellectual and chattering classes - that is, among those who offer their opinions and arguments for a living and can support themselves and their families in that way - that many people who do not earn their living by writing and opining have substantially less freedom in what they can say publicly, and under their own names.

Even people who do earn a living by expressing their opinions don't really do so freely, because they know their true opinions aren't popular with their public. Do you think the mainstream journalists really believe the stuff they say? That Sean Hannity, for example, doesn't know that what he does is showmanship rather than an honest expression of his views? I'm not a big fan of MJ Rosenberg, but I will say this: any mainstream pundit who said the things he says would be run out of their job in months. So none of them do, even though I know for a fact that many of them think the same things he says, and "worse." Attaching one's name to commentary does nothing to make it more honest or credible.

In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace

The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer

My first posting online was back in 1999, on the Straight Dope Message Board (SDMB), an offshoot of the Straight Dope column published in many alternative weeklies. People chose aliases reflecting some aspect of their personalities; I became RTFirefly, after Groucho's role in Duck Soup. (Hail, hail Freedonia...)

The SDMB community resulted in various offline get-togethers, friendships, romances, and marriages. So intimacy was available for those that wanted it, but those who wanted some separation between themselves and the online hordes could maintain that.

I shortened my handle to RT, or occasionally Rufus, when I started posting comments in the blogosphere about three years ago. I've yet to get together with any blog denizens offline. For the time being, I still prefer to maintain some separation.

I think that pseudonyms are OK, but one should be as polite and thoughtful as if signing with real name.

Now, would writing full names elicit any responses from participants of the Princeton Project?

"Libertine" sounds feminine to me, and I always thought you were a woman. I'm going to have to adjust my mental image of you. It's kind of like when I read a book and I have a perfect vision of the main character and then they cast, say, Brad Pitt instead of Jonny Depp. It takes a real adjustment!

Jan Knaus

"Newsgroup readers and email clients, for years, have had the ability to filter out people or subjects not of interest, or likely to be flames. Sooner or later, I suspect such filtering capability will be necessary for blog clients."

It is the one thing I miss on web based discussion groups. I like usenet news readers they give me the ability to screen out individuals and subjects. This gives me control over the noise level that can overtake a discussion.

I quit posting under my own name several years ago while still on usenet. There got to be too many trolls and net kooks that would stalk you from group to group. While I had no trouble I saw others that did. Another reason I would recommend not using your name for those younger members is because your words last forever in some archive. I don't want to be judged by the opinions I had when I was 20. It has been a long strange trip in the last 40 years and I'm a different person now.

Old sock puppet

Jack

I should add that while my current employer gives us email accounts in the form firstname.lastname (at the company domain), I worked at Columbia University Press and thus indirectly for the university, which assigned us all the username of our first and last initials followed by a number. Since two letters aren't terribly unique, I was already well into the 600s, and that was three or four years ago. When I had an account with Earthlink, even first initial last name were not enough to avoid adding a surprisingly large number. In the age of technology, we shall have to accept some limitations. I have yet to meet Agent 86, however. 

I hear global warming will do wonders for Greenland, Eric. Be sure to keep us apprised.  

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Active? QUITE lively, I'd say. MJ is awesome.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

One difference is that both of you are trying to establish and/or promote your names for professional reasons. I'm not.

I use a pseudonym for many reasons, mostly personal, and I've never deluded myself that the powers that be couldn't figure out who I really am.

I work in the creative arts, and don't want my professional work judged by the mediocre opinions I bandy about in cyberspace.

Moreover, since my last name is one of the most common in the U.S., I'm familiar with not being able to use it in email addresses and such.

Altho' I do admire the philosopher John Locke, 'Lockean' really morphed from Loch Lomand of the Scottish song, which I used in various ways for pseudonyms and the like through the years. One branch of my family is from that vicinity so it's easy to remember.

I don't mind that 'Lockean' sounds idiotic. I'd like folks to be as wary of my opinions as they ought to be of Mr. The Dad's.

Well, not THAT wary. Mr. The Dad is a friggin' bozo.

I also think one should be aware that there is no such thing as absolute anonymity. It's probably prudent not only in posting "anonymously" but also on private e-mails, to at least try to write as one would in a letter that some unauthorized person might accidentally pick up, avoiding obscenities and measuring ones words as is advisable in any public discourse.

OK, Amitai, you've convinced me. I revealed my true identity on my bio page. I was just using the handle for the fun of it, but identiy seems to be an issue with some folks here who I respect very much. Thank you.

Neoboho

Now that you've explained the origin of your name, I have a meme circling my brain, shouting to be introduced: "Nessian".

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

'Nessian' would be more suitable for someone who worked for the FBI.

Thank you, Workerbee.

About the size of my tae kwon do sensei.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

It seems from participating here for almost two years that a lot of people hide behind screen names so they can be rude and abusive in ways they would not do if they had to reveal their true identies. Newspapers and magazines might withhold people's names but they tend not to publish pseudonyms.

However, Dan K is certainly right that some peole might be in jeopardy at their jobs if they voice some opinions or any opinions. Thus idea of tenure for college professors. It would be interesting to have as discussion about the relative ease for people to express their opinions, not just online but in newspapers, in the face of employer or even social pressures to the contrary.

Or the converse. When the carivore controversy was raging, I thought the best was to protect our right to privacy was a mass movement to include the obvious buzzwords in all of our communications. 

Here's a real bombshell for you, my dog is terrorizing my neighbor's cat, so he bought some sort of chemical weapon to counter my dog's attempt to assassinate the poor cat, and... 

I'm not sure if that's funny...maybe not. 

Neoboho

Were I privileged to write as a regular columnist

instead of being always in the position of responder, I would probably use my full name.  I am just "a" Mike around here, not "the" Mike.  Like Libertine, I've posted my pic, and from comment to comment have divulged information which was contextual to the comment, so anyone who has read my little bits from time to time knows I live in Rhode Island (which was pertinent to a discussion on the difference between getting responses from politicians in big states and small states), that I work in a private university (which was pertinent to a response to some remarks of DanielGree), and that I teach history--I tend to view many things through that particular intellectual lens.

I'm not worried about being fired... I have tenure.  I do feel a responsibility to separate what I say professionally from what I say in my private person...rather like Kant argued in What is Enlightenment, though he uses the terms public and private pretty much in reverse of our contemporary usage--rather like the English idea of the Public School.  If I say something particularly stupid, I'd prefer not to have my institution suffer for it.   And, like many others, I have no particular reason to have my e-mail clogged with nasty and/or inane and/or spooky messages from persons on the edge of something or the other.  The idea of crank phone calls is also more than a bit worrisome.

If Mr. Etzioni wants to know my "real" name, I invite him to e-mail me, and I'll be happy to share it with him.  If any of the rest of you do, e-mail me, and I'll think about it...less carefully with the ones I've come to know, enjoy, and respect over the last nearly two years.  (Of course, I suppose you could be serial murderers in "real life" but I'll take the chance). 

aMike

LOL! (or at least chuckle)

I logged in prepared to post something similar, but am glad you did first.

Since my ID is basically consistent in all the public, politically-oriented sites I frequent, anyone could take this five-letter identity and find my opinions on not only broad political issues, but also some more personal ones, and I'd be an idiot not to be aware of that fact. As you pointed out, none of us gets paid to pontificate; for that matter, while my job isn't overtly political, I do in fact have to deal with Republicans at times and would rather not risk making it more difficult due to my online activities. And of course my employer would be ill-served by any obstacles on that front, as well. Obviously, if my employment was in a field that had no potential conflicts with, or risks of organizational problems from, my politics, I'd be more forthcoming.

Besides, I'm pretty sure Josh and his staff would have no problem identifying me, so if one of the TPM front-pagers wants to know my identity and will refrain from publishing it, I'm fine with them asking the office. Like most people here, I just don't want to be Googled right out of paid employment, especially since the left emphatically does not help out those who risk their livelihood to help progressivism-- witness the Human Rights Campaign staffer (Lane something, I think?) who broke the Foley IM story that handed Congress to Dems, lost his job, and was adrift for months, helped by small grants from places like MyDD.com. The GOP takes care of their own, but our side just doesn't, so we'd be crazy to stick our necks out too far.

I registered using my name and then noticed that most people didn't and wondered if I'd done something wrong. My comments are pretty mundane compared to others and I sometimes feel like I should just keep my mundane thoughts to myself, but I like being able to comment. I don't think I would want a job with someone who didn't want to hire me based on these comments. Also, though, I seem to have far less knowledge than most of those who comment-- so they may have jobs that put them more in jeopardy. Remember DK who had to quit his job before he could name himself.

Well, based on some of the previous posts, I googled my name to see if any of my comments on TPM Cafe came up, and based on the google search, I remain completely anonymous. There seem to be many, many others with my name and none of them seem to be posting here.

I hear global warming will do wonders for Greenland, Eric. Be sure to keep us apprised.

will do :)

I know I am belaboring the point made by many others here already, but my reason for anonymous posting has to do with employment, not fear of police state retribution. I'm well aware that the NSA, et. al. knows where to find me, or can find out in a nanosecond.

I can't prove it, but I suspect a couple of Google entries that pop up under my name MAY have had something to do with me losing a job. And of course, they are still there for prospective employers to peruse, which is even worse. So, I've learned my lesson, too late. Henceforth, I can post my views with "unmitigated audacity" around the web, which I do with that consistent pseudonym. But I can't take back that which I foolishly posted under my own name years ago.

Talk about your chilling effects.

UA

True story, relating directly to the issue. About a year ago, on TPM, I became involved in a heated argument with a person I would call an extremist troll. On several occasions he called for violence against individuals or called for mass execution of those he designated Liberals. He was a repellent person, though his views, I suppose, are neither here nor there. For the record, it wasn't BradtheDad, or at least, it wasn't under that name. The discussion between us was quite antagonistic.

Out of personal animosity, he googled my name and determined that in addition to political commentary, I was a writer of speculative fiction.

As an act of malice, he proceeded to spam a series of science fiction, fantasy and speculative writing sites with a violent and vituperative attack against me. At least some of these attacks were received by people who knew me, who advised me of same.

The man was a fool. But the malice at work was significant. With a bit more attention and drive, he could have forwarded attacks to my employment, my professional community, my professional association, my peer groups, etc. In short, it was only his own incompetence that saved me from having to endure blistering anonymous attacks throughout my personal life. With a bit more sophistication, such anonymous personal attacks could have caused real damage or hardship, for instance, accusing me of sexual misconduct, financial impropriety, breaches of professional ethics, etc. etc.

The only recourse I would have had would have been a long, extremely expensive, and ghastly chain of technical deconstruction, detective work, threatened litigation and litigation... Together with efforts at damage repair at home. Most people don't have the resources to handle that.

I note that there are communities, particularly on Right Wing sites like FreeRepublic.com, that have perfected the art of personal bombing and attacks through the internet. They claim to have gotten people fired from their jobs and otherwise ostracized and impaired in their lives. Certainly, they are sure to have been extremely unpleasant for their victims.

There is little or no effective legal recourse against attacks such as this. The anonymous character of the attacker makes it difficult to stop or reply to. The geographic differences and issues make it difficult to even threaten legal action, assuming you can obtain a valid ISP address which could eventually get you a real identity.

I continue to post under my own name, with the perception that this is an increasingly risky thing to do. But it seems to me that hiding is simply unmanly. I may someday pay a more substantial price for my 19th century notions of manliness.

I believe that many persons post under avatars and nicknames, because there is genuine malice out there. The fact that most people do not experience that malice most of the time does not mean that the threat is not a deterrent.

Consider mugging, violent sexual assault, armed robbery, etc. This is not happening to most people, most of the time. The possibility and the threat, however, are always there, and it deters and shapes behaviour.

Frankly, I will not condemn anonymity, despite the harmful ways it can be used or abused, because for most people, it is their only slender defence against those abuses.

I think that the internet as a whole, needs to develop protocols or etiquette to curb abusers, and particularly, to curb abusers who take their attacks off the computer screen into a campaign against individuals private lives.

I just did this google search:

"Barbara Hobbs", TPMCafe

You've made only one post prior to the two you have on this thread. It is too soon for them to show up in a search.

What do I know about you? Your husband would rather not vote than vote for Hillary but you think you can talk him around. :-)

See how easy it is to follow a trail?

I post under my actual name. I also post on UseNet under my own name (and have done so for more than ten years now) as well.

I do notice that there seems to be a temptation to write things using a screen name that one probably would not say to a persons's face. I think that putting my own name to what I write may have some tempering effect. On the other hand, I do intentionally avoid mentioning my employer in my profile because I don't speak as their representative in any way.

Its my view the idea of anonymity in a discussion forum (particulary a contentious forum) is an illusion anyway. Merely by the words we write, the arguments we make and the way that we contend with people who disagree with us, we inherently identify ourselves, screen-names or not. The reason that I believe to be true is that in order to present an alternate discussion "style", a person would have to purposefully and consistently give up some area of argumentative strength or authority. How many of those who post anonymously bother to do that? From observation I believe that few, if any, do this, particulary in the heat of a contentious discussion.

In short, I doubt that anonymous posters are as anonymous as they think they are.

-Dave Adams-

Doh!

And yes, my real name is Michael Bacon. It's not a pseudonym.

But which Michael Bacon of the 262 Michael Bacons in this Intelius People Search is the real Michael Bacon? If any.

Correction:    Michael appears to be the Michael Bacon living on Rosehill Avenue near the corner of Green Street in Durham, NC.  Sorry.

it wasn't BradtheDad,

It's absurd, and truly an indication of the still heavy political bias on this forum, that you would even feel it necessary to say that.

Since I see that a contributor has on this thread intimated that the user "BradtheDad" is some sort of troublesome member, I would simply like to give all those lurking readers out there a chance to judge for themselves the quality of his commenting: here's a link to all his comments.

Which reminds me: this is still a very strange unfair virtual world where many get misrepresented and labeled incorrectly. If one is to use one's real name, one would have to run around checking all the google results to make sure one's opinions and actual personality are not being misrepresented. That could end up being a very time-consuming job. People like David Brooks and Tom Friedman and Matt Yglesias and Markos have the luxury of the time (with the help of assistants in the first two cases, friends and fans in the latter two) to be able to worry about that. BradtheDad just gets smeared and has to watch for it all by himself. He should use his real name? Bah!

Those of you who would like to see people using their real names more: did you ever think that if you stopped making it so personal all the time, and stopped judging the commenter as a person, slapping a label on them, and started judging each comment instead, that that might happen more often? The ad hominen culture makes other people reluctant to post at all, I am sure of it.

For instance, I have this silly adversary out there who signs everything "Brad The Dad." How can I remotely respect someone who hides under such a childish name. So I don't.

I don't think I have ever found member BradTheDad's comments silly. I seek them out and look forward to them as much or more than I look forward to your own posts. There are lots of silly useless comments on this site, simplistic political agitprop that readers are tortured with over and over and over, "amen brother" crap inserted inbetween grownups trying to thoughtfully discuss issues. It's hard to find an example of him doing that.

It is both interesting and odd that a name affects you so. While you ignore simpleminded agitprop, give the noise a pass.

Also didn't you recently add a video of your kid or some such to one of your posts as an update? You have removed that now, it seems...at least I can't find it, but I do remember some references to it in discussion. Perhaps "Brad" puts his fatherly pride in his user name, I don't know and frankly I don't care, but at least he doesn't share his kid pix in his commentaries on Israel and Palestine. Could your interest with the silliness topic be one that's hitting too close to home? If you have the urge to post personal "community sharing" info., ever think of putting it on a separate "Reader Blog" entry for those who are interested in stuff like kids, marriages, divorces and what world leaders eat for dinner? I have nothing against pop/celeb culture, I love it, but I like the media that covers it to maintain a separation of some sort.

This is the best comment of the thread. Many of us seem to live in a "Republic of Fear" you might say, one in which people have all traded security and freedom for the aggressive efficiencies of the unregulated market, and the serf-like subservience and vulnerability that goes with it. And yet how eager so many of our society's most privileged members have been to impose this system on others around the world, even through the force of arms.

Also note, and this is of special import, that people who use aliases are on average much more abusive, unfair, and intemperate than those who disclose their true identity.

Oh REALLY? Well, frankly Mr. Etzioni, that's patently false on the face of it. The vast majority of people that DO post to political and other forums do so under psueds.

Are the vast majority abusive, intemperate and unfair?

I think not!

That comment surely was.

I tell you what, if you can get rid of bullies that ARE abusive, unfair, and intemperate under psueds or otherwise, I'll start posting under my own name.

As soon as I learn Tae kwon do.

Mr Etzioni: "Real communities foster intimacy as well as trust, as people get to know one another and form close, warm bonds."

Leaving aside the obvious fact that this is not a small intimate community, but an exposed public forum, others have pointed out that Mr. Etzioni not only shares nothing in the way of personal information (such as whether he is paid to post here and by whom -- or if he does I am not aware of it) with the other members of this forum -- but also doesn't indicate that he even reads our posts. In what way does he deserve anyone's trust?

So you are not Larry Oliver Kean? Oh, well, sorry, Larry Oliver.

Berkowitz: Bonnie banks of Loch Ness? ... and the monster came and ate my true love, on bonnie banks of Loch Ness ... (Chorus) ...

If you are curious about identity of others, one method is to challenge them to make a bet.

My experience is that someone took the challenge on 50 dollar bet on Gore loosing Florida. After long tortuous process I lost the bet and I had to mail a check to an actual address.

How about "Will do -- glub glub glub... bubble -- pop!"

Jan Knaus

This is the issue of our times. Democracy was a (fairly)effective control over capital when it was in the form of land once property ownership ceased to be a pre-requisite for voting. Democratic local government (and the votes of labor) could serve as an effective check and balance on land owners who, after all, also lived in the community. In the corporate age, this balance has been lost. Local government is powerless to regulate capital that can relocate at will to another state of the Union or even to Dubai. In this political model, only shareholders are empowered (and only at the margin). Our business schools churn out MBAs who see their ONLY role as to create or maximize shareholder wealth. Few question the morality of this position and none see the chilling parallal with the days when only property owners could vote. The rest of us have rights of tenancy that many serfs would have found unacceptable.

Interesting! Actually my maiden name was Garber, and I went to high school with a boy named Jan Garber who was always in trouble and I was always getting called in to the office for a reprimand. I stopped going after a while.

The "Knaus" is from my former husband, and the name is Austrian-by-way-of-Slovenia, Yugoslavia.

Jan Knaus

It's because of my job. Pure and simple.

I used to post under my name. That was before I went to work for a company that actively engages in lots of political lobbying for business reasons, for causes many of which I personally oppose.

Here's a 5 just for the MySpace point... my age is showing, but I friggin' hate MySpace. People put so much junk in their profiles, not just the barrage of visual and sound clips, but they list every. single. topic. in which they ever expressed even the vaguest interest. And maybe it is old-fashioned, but I find it off-putting when someone I find mildly interesting in person has so much crap on their page that there's really no point in trying to learn anything about them any more. Or, as someone I know noted, she never would have given her now-husband a second glance had she seen an online profile early on, because the way he would present his interests to strangers would have made him exponentially less interesting to her-- she would have assumed that his college-football loyalties were intense enough to bore her senseless, for example, when in reality they're only a mild annoyance.

Anyway, you're right about online presentations not really being useful and/or productive in certain aspects of one's offline life.

/rant

Also, I want to agree that it's not necessarily fear of losing one's job that makes many of us cautious-- after all, this is most likely a pretty white-collar professional group-- but just not wanting to expose ourselves to contacts that are really better maintained without sharing certain information.

I'd do it, if offered.

But, to be honest... is that really a problem here? Is there a fake destor23 out there posting homphopbic comments that demand a tax cut for billaionaires and the invasion of Iran?

Heck, nobody could get the destor23 name right now, as I understand it because they'd be told another user already exists by that name.

I think us long term readers of the site, who are used to seeing each other's pseudonymns and who also have access to both the ratings history for the poster and by the poster, are already pretty well informed.

Though, I must admit, I know destor23, I've worked with destor23, and I am no destor23.

Just kidding, I am.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Fascinating thread. I began with the general sense that using real names is best since ultimately online identities can almost always be cracked. I began commenting online & blogging seven or eight years ago & I just sort of naturally used my real name. But I have tenure, and as some folks have very justly pointed out, that makes a world of difference.

Here at the Cafe, I have posted as "jackrussell" (I own three actual JRTs) because when I signed up I was asked for a screen name & it seemed that most people used a handle. My profile has always had a link to my blog, where my identity is completely transparent. I just edited my profile to list my actual name, but I make no claim that this puts me in an ethically superior position to anyone else who posts here.

The thread demonstrates the dangers of sweeping moral generalizations, of which the pundit class is all too fond. There are good reasons why some people choose to post under a pseudonym, just as there are bad reasons. This is an issue best addressed pragmatically, with the understanding that no general rule will cover all the possible cases, except perhaps the general rule that everyone who posts should address others forthrightly & honestly while keeping a civil tongue in their heads (as my mother used to say).

Here's a smattering of Brad's choicer comments. In my view, its a picture of borderline racism, condescension, an all too ready willingness to attack and bully those who disagree with him. Read on....

* Contrast this with the Palestinians. There, you have maybe 40-50% of the population who support the murder of innocents and believe in a vision to destroy Israel. You have another 40-50% of the population who might be willing to be pragmatic for the time being but haven't given up their longing to see Israel destroyed.

* My God, what a stupendously moronic post.

* Your razor-sharp political antennae never cease to amaze.

* Un-fucking-believable. Here's MJ Rosenberg, holier-than-thou progressive hero, making common cause with The American Conservative, a magazine started by noted Israel-hater and all-around anti-Semite Pat Buchanan.... Might that have something to do with the fact that Carter, as an ex-President, is more likely to get a respectful hearing than your average Israel-critic/hater? .... It's hard to get angry at someone who simply apologizes for the hurtful things he says. Of course his insincere apologies do nothing to counter his contribution to the demonization of Israel in the world at large. It doesn't stop him from defending his use of the word "apartheid" in other forums, as profoundly offensive to Jews as that term is. .... It says absolutely nothing about agreement with Carter or his vile book that he was treated to a respectful hearing at Brandeis.

* (Directed at MJ Rosenberg) Compare to yours Carter and progressives in general views about Jews, Jewish Lobby, Israel and so on Buchanan is mild moderate man.

* All this proves is that your ignorance on this issue is simply boundless. Like all Israel haters you refuse to confront the evidence in front of your face. .... That level of delusion is usually reserved for people like Dick Cheney. Congratulations on the marvellous company you keep.

*Iran and the Arab governments are run by fanatic criminal gangsters who foment hate among their people to distract them from the pathetic state of their countries. Sure there's a double standard. And rightly so.

* And liberals wonder why they get accused of hating America. .... Just one question: what planet are you living on?

* Are you just naive or is your mind just cluttered with anti-American leftist claptrap? It's got to be one or the other.

* So the crack about running Humpty-Dumpty is, along with the rest of your post, sheer nonsense.

*end of quotes*

If you find these comments reasonable, Daniel Greenbaum, all power to you.

This wasn't a hatchet job. Artappraiser posted a link to Brad's posts. I went there. I didn't systematically start anywhere. I'd hop from page to page skipping a few in between, select a post, take a look. It didn't take long to accumulate this stuff, and after fifteen minutes it became tiresome and unpleasant.

I didn't particularly go out of my way to collect these. I jumped pages, its a fairly random sample.

He's particularly irrational on middle east issues, particularly willing to make racist slurs of arabs, palestinians, Iranians and their governments, and all but hysterical in his attacks on anything that ever so remotely or tentatively questions any of Israel's policies.

He's also prone to insulting and belittling the people that he's discussing things with, and expressing himself in an arrogant and condescending manner.

Rather than say 'you're wrong' Brad will tend to something like "All you Kos-kool aid drinkers are tripping out on hallucinations..." "Wow, you/your post is completely moronic." That's pretty damned abusive. It seems that BradtheDad often has nothing but contempt for people who don't think as he does and is not afraid to show it. Any kind of substantive disagreement may trigger invective. That is, if he isn't attacking ab initio.

For some reason he seems to have a particular hatred against Mr.Rosenberg, against him he carries an apparent vendetta from post to post and freely mocks. I'm not sure what that's about, I came across it a few times and it grew tiresome pretty quickly.

While I'll agree that BradtheDad isn't always this racist or abusive, what I'll say is that he's not shy about it.

For myself, I'll admit that I can be a pretty big jerk. No question. But the difference between me and Brad is that first, I'm not inclined to indulge my borderline racism in hysterical tones. And for the most part for the most part, I try not to get medieval on someone until they pick a fight... then its clobberin' time. And I'll make an apology for my bad behaviour, once upon a time, when a reasonable third party points out to me that I've been unreasonable.

Brad doesn't apologize, he doesn't hold back, he's pretty free with his attacks, and he's pretty ugly with both his attacks and his borderline racism.

But this isn't a beauty contest. I'm not comparing my personal merits to BradtheDad's.

I'm just saying that on his own merits, BradtheDad is pretty ugly. I don't think he's a person I'd want to know in real life. And on this board, I personally consider him little more than a semi-tame troll. But then, I'm happy to acknowledge that BradtheDad and I have very little regard for each other.

That said, I'll repeat that BradtheDad was not the genocide advocate who chose to attack me outside TPMCafe. Or at least, I have no evidence to suggest this. And once again, for the record, I have never heard BradtheDad directly advocate genocide.

Under the circumstances, I think I'm being pretty fair.

I don't see why a single throwaway sentence which was neither controversial nor particularly pointed should become the subject of a whole line of discussion.

My first thought, besides "your going to do what with that knife"
My thought about some objecting to not using real names. I too like, Artappraiser, like my privacy.
I hope those who are pushing the idea of the necessity of using real names, are not going to highjack the free, and open flow of all views.

I am reminded by the Jewish Pharisee class, who at
Acts 4:13 (Amplified Bible)13Now when they saw the boldness and unfettered eloquence of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and untrained in the schools [common men with no educational advantages], they marveled;

UNFETTERED and BOLDNESS

Why, should my name be important? Does it offend, that I too am unlearned and untrained. That my thoughts should be considered unworthy, "Because I am, Nobody" In fact, my intent of using the name Chuckie, was to embrace the fact that I am unlearned, a babe, to some of the complex issues discussed on TPM . But I am willing to learn and I appreciate the responses, as they help me to correct deficiencies in my thinking. So many to thank, so thank you all.

I do it because I have students and clients to protect. I do it because I did my doctoral  research in countries where research was banned, and it's a habit. I do it because I've lived and worked in more than one fascist country without a work permit. I do it because I was stalked for years. I do it because if I call some boorish poster a burned out old gasbag, I want a 48-hour jump start to wire the carpet before he can raid my place. I do it because my lawyer wants me to. I do it because I can be contacted by email on a need-to-know basis.  I do it for my Canadian boyfriend, Lurch. :D

(More)Ticia

anon.penet.fi was different, in several respects, from a distributed trust authentication system. First, it was a single point, where traffic could be tracked in and out by a sophisticated (i.e., intelligence agency level) interceptor. Second, it was under the authority of a single person. Third, it was used for content, not authentication.

You need to have initial trust in a basic PGP-like system, to get the first few signatures. Once the web is running, the original signer could go away, and as long as there are enough cross-signatures, the authentication system would still work.

Beyond basic distributed trust, there are other approaches such as zero-knowledge proofs.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

When my friends who lived in the city would complain of creeping loss of privacy, I would say, "Try living in a small town, where everyone knows your business and who your friends are."

Later, I realized that my answer was off the mark. In a small town, the loss of privacy, though complete, is mutual-- you also know everybody's business, and who their friends are. So, there is a built-in mechanism for maintaining some degree of respect and laissez-faire.

On the Web, OTOH, there is no such mutuality. You never know who is reading your posts, or what they might be motivated to do if they feel provoked. Giving away your real name on the Web is like being the only one in town without a fence-- it's an invitation to any stray dog that is so inclined, to use your yard.

That's why I advise everyone, without exception, to use screen names. Obviously, this advice would be pointless to people who are already known publicly under their real name.

Why, thank you, Thing.

Because companies in my field which you can easily see if you click on my profile actually DO discriminate (with some reason but mostly needlessly) based on blog comments. If I want to pay of $100,000 in loans I have to watch what I say and as how I say it. Another reason is that the name SAYS something about me. MNPundit. It states a focus or origin (Minnesota) and that I intend to act as pundit. Also again, that's just how it's always been done online.

BUT as I've argued, mostly against the world with my criticism of David Kurtz, if you are posting on a hugely important blog like TPM, or DailyKos, you really have given up your right to anonymity. You are getting the glory and influence of the blog (Josh Marshall or Markos Zuniga, or Matt Stoller certainly have real-world influence!) and that means you need your real name. That is the price, much like any other celebrity. Privacy goes out the window in return for accepting the position. It's why I have 0 sympathy for people in situations likes Armando's. This was the path you chose.

So to Etzioni and MJ Rosenberg, when I have your platform and your power, you will have MY name. This I swear on anything you like. If I don't divulge my name then I pledge to abandon the power.

Not that's it's hard to find my real name but it's the principle of the thing...

While I find your lampooning of Ivory Tower Academics rather overwrought and generally non-useful the point you make remains: Losing a job can happen because of what you say on a message board.

Let me also add that in the modern era, losing your job hurts you a hell of a lot more than it did 20 years ago. We fall a LOT farther now thanks to the Ownership Society--just another way to use fear to cow the masses.

I'm with those who find some value in an alias--it allows more posters (good) and allows uninhibited expression (interesting, sometimes useful).

I decided that in my business any publicity is good publicity. Being public also concentrates my mind into more sober statements than I might make anonymously. I perhaps fool myself in thinking I make well-supported arguments that would not put me at risk in any community, but then again I have no politics/job worries so that's easy for me to say.

Not a perfect correlation (CVille comes to mind) but the public among us tend to be more cautious in wording, I'd say. I don't think that's bad because it's one reason the site is well-regarded. The higher proportion of reasoned argument vs. dittoes or shout-downs is something to be proud of. (BTW, Jan also contributes fine writing along with blunt honesty.)

It can be dual use!

It's true I'm low on substance compared to some pundits out there! :'(

I am not BradTheDad, but I think BradTheDad is a great name that goes along way towards offering what Amitai Etzioni is seeking: a name, and a characteristic of the author, in this case, he is apparently proud of his role as father, and feels that for us to know that role can help us understand where he is coming from.

In that sense BradTheDad is perhaps equal or better than than the name "mjrosenberg."

I know (or think I know) from BradTheDad, that Brad is male, and probably a father.

I know (or think I know) from "mjrosenberg" that "mjrosenberg" is probably Jewish. (As am I.)

They both provide easy to remember names, and they both provide some knowledge of attributes of the author. BradTheDad offers more knowledge of the author than "mjrosenberg", so I conclude that "mjrosenberg" is a sillier name than "BradTheDad".

"jerry" tells me that the author is probably male, so I conclude that "jerry" is just as silly a name as "mjrosenberg" and more silly than "BradTheDad."

That's me. Although I admit, it's a little jarring to see the location so explicitly identified. But I guess that's the point -- the benefits are worth being disconcerted.