Against Outing (Most) Anonymous Bloggers
Obsidian Wings is a fine blog. As a writer, a citizen engaged in the issues facing my country, and a man who enjoys reading for leisure, I benefit from the content its contributors produce everyday for free. This isn’t to say that I agree with every post on the site. Indeed I benefit most when Obsidian Wings is forcefully stating views with which I disagree. On these matters, a desire to hash out an issue with the best of my opponents leads me to that group blog, where I can count on reasoned arguments offered in good faith.
I wish there were more blogs like Obsidian Wings — I don’t mean that I want other group blogs to mimic its particular niche when it comes to the issues of the day, but that I want other smart, eloquent folks whose day jobs are outside journalism to set up a group blog, invest their time, and participate in public discourse. In my personal life, I can think of a couple dozen friends who’d make exceptional bloggers. Some refrain from jumping into the fray for lack of time or interest. And others would blog except for the fact that for personal or professional reasons, they don’t want to express sometimes controversial views under their own byline, and they fear that were they to blog anonymously they’d eventually be outed.
It is rash, uncharitable actions like the outing of Publius by Ed Whalen that prevents us all from enjoying the thoughts of countless folks who don’t blog because anonymity is prone to leak. This isn’t to say that anonymous blogging hasn’t any downsides, or that outing is wrong in all circumstances. In this case, however, the cost Mr. Whalen imposed on us all seems to come without any benefit to anyone save himself. I hope that the next time anyone decides to out an anonymous blogger, they’ve met a far higher threshold than is the case in this instance.
Dissent has always been risky, and not surprisingly anonymity and pseudonymity has a long and storied history in political and erotic expression both. I wonder if anyone has ever been jailed for giving controversial opinions on animal husbandry?
— Tony Comstock · Jun 7, 09:09 PM · #
“In this case, however, the cost Mr. Whalen imposed on us all seems to come without any benefit to anyone save himself.”
Oh, in this case, Whelan looks like such a slimy, thin-skinned little twerp, that it’s high costs all round. I see absolutely no benefit to anyone from his action. But you’re right, we all pay for his self-absorbed vengeful act of spite.
— nadezhda · Jun 7, 09:27 PM · #
When someone criticizes your views and you respond by revealing their personal secrets, what that tells the world is that you don’t have any actual arguments — you just have the desire for vengeance. You may actually have arguments, but your petty actions make people think that you must not. Otherwise, why would you make a personal attack instead of a formulating a rational response?
— Alan Jacobs · Jun 7, 11:34 PM · #
I can not wait until you and I get into some sort of public spat, Alan!
— Tony Comstock · Jun 7, 11:53 PM · #
Hah! Then I’ll out you, “Comstock”! Wait . . . you don’t mean . . .
— Alan Jacobs · Jun 8, 12:27 AM · #
But seriously, I’ve know more than one woman sex bloggers who had their identity revealed. One of my very favorite voices was extinguished after repeated breaches of her privacy, and it’s a damn pity. She was a wonderful writer, and kept a wonderful blog about what it was like to be in a marriage with a husband that was less sexual enthusiastic than she was. I know her blog was tremendously reassuring to other women who had found themselves in similar situations and were tormented by feeling of guilt, shame, rejection, etc.
None these women were outed because they had gotten the better of a rival in an internet spat, they were simply outed —sometimes by the media, sometime by individuals – because it could be done, and doing it would hurt them.
Speaking, the day before yesterday, my daughter asked me about “Tony Comstock”. I explained to her that it was sort of like Hanna Montana, but without the paparazzi.
— Tony Comstock · Jun 8, 12:54 AM · #
There should be a simple rule for anonymous bloggers: If you can’t take someone calling you out by name, don’t attack them by name.
I like John (he wrote for me once at Culture11) and I don’t like the way Ed handled the situation. But when you attack people by name—as John has done—you can’t really whine when they mention you by name.
If you can’t afford the cost of blogging, don’t blog. Most of us who are not anonymous must be wary of what we say for fear of the repercussions. Why should anyone else be held to a lower standard?
— Joe Carter · Jun 8, 03:53 AM · #
Look Friedersdorf, I don’t really like you or nancy minded stances. Let me be blunt about that.
However, you hit the nail squarely on the head concerning Whelan, his outing of Publius, and blogging in general. And you did it in a particularly high-minded fashion. My hat is unabashedly off to you and your commentary on this one. Nicely written.
— Mike · Jun 8, 04:15 AM · #
Joe, I make films and participate in blogs under a pseudonym. I have my reasons, and I (think that I) am well aware of both the licenses this gives me and the risks it entails.
Suppose in the course of this thread I said something that made you look foolish. Let’s take it a step farther. Suppose I said something that clearly crossed the line, taking advantage of my anonymity to attack you in a way that was unfair.
Would you respond by saying “I know the identity of Tony Comstock. He is in fact Jacob Bryan, a film studies professor at Wheaton College.”
Would you do that, Joe?
— Tony Comstock · Jun 8, 09:13 AM · #
Also, anything that uses cellos so artfully is clearly the right thing to do.
— Tony Comstock · Jun 8, 10:28 AM · #
Here’s what I don’t understand:
When it comes to public discussions, why does Joe Carter get to make the rules for other people?
And by the way, Publius was pseudonymous, not anonymous.
— wjs · Jun 8, 12:48 PM · #
“When it comes to public discussions, why does Joe Carter get to make the rules for other people?”
I think Joe has offered nothing more than prudent advice for those who wish to maintain their anonymity against the simple fact that there is no shortage of boorish people in the world, and especially not in the Blogosphere.
Right Joe?
— Tony Comstock · Jun 8, 02:04 PM · #
I’m asking this all over, because I am baffled. You seem to be using “anonymous” to mean “pseudonymous”, though they are two very different things, especially online. The link in my sig is to a post I made about what (rare) truly anonymous blogging looks like. What we are talking about is pseudonymity, a consistent internet identity. Do you not know the difference, or do you not think it matters — and if so, why not?
— Doctor Science · Jun 8, 02:29 PM · #
“When someone criticizes your views and you respond by revealing their personal secrets”
Your identity should not be a personal secret if you want to engage in public debate. Which isn’t to defend Whelen in this matter, because he does appear to be a jerk, but anonymity or pseudonymity seems to be an Established Internet Tradition that no longer fits the role leading bloggers play in our political discourse. There’s an obvious imbalance to a discussion where one person remains in the shadows while the other has to sweat it out under the spotlight.
Secondly, I think it would be fair to say that publius didn’t just engage in a dry dissection of Whelen’s logic and use or misuse of facts. I think most folks would agree that publius engaged in at least a certain amount of mockery and insult. As someone who has been both the perpetrator and the victim of such stuff, I have no problem with mockery or insult…but that isn’t debate or discussion. It is its own form or abuse, harassment and intimidation. Even if Whelen deserved such treatment, a person receiving abuse is entitled to fire back and the person dishing out the abuse is NOT entitled to determine what sort of return fire is allowed.
Or to put it another way, if you go on being a smartass, sooner or later you’re going to get a pop in the mouth. That’s life.
Mike
— MBunge · Jun 8, 03:06 PM · #
“[A}nonymity or pseudonymity seems to be an Established Internet Tradition that no longer fits the role leading bloggers play in our political discourse. There’s an obvious imbalance to a discussion where one person remains in the shadows while the other has to sweat it out under the spotlight.”
Maybe (maybe) I agree with this. But if I do, the polite thing to do is make this point and challenge your antagonist to reveal themselves, and then let your mutual audience draw their own conclusions.
And obviously neither Publius nor any other anonymous or pseudonymous blogger, whether dishing abuse or potato salad, is entitled to determine what is dished out in return. Has anyone suggested otherwise?
Norms are not the behavior you enforce on other people; norms are the behavior you expect of yourself.
— Tony Comstock · Jun 8, 03:21 PM · #
“Has anyone suggested otherwise?”
At least some of the folks pitching hissyfits about this in other places are categorizing Whelen’s act as the equivalent of bullying, threatening, stalking and other such extreme behavior. Their attitude is that Whelen has committed some ethical violation by “outing” publius. It may have been childish and petty, but Whelen is under no ethical obligation to respect publius pseudonymity.
Mike
— MBunge · Jun 8, 04:13 PM · #
“At least some of the folks pitching hissyfits about this in other places are categorizing Whelen’s act as the equivalent of bullying, threatening, stalking and other such extreme behavior. Their attitude is that Whelen has committed some ethical violation by “outing” publius. It may have been childish and petty, but Whelen is under no ethical obligation to respect publius pseudonymity.”
In your first comment:
“ Even if Whelen deserved such treatment, a person receiving abuse is entitled to fire back and the person dishing out the abuse is NOT entitled to determine what sort of return fire is allowed.”
I thought you were referring to Publius. . I read Publius’s comments on the matter. He seemed, to my mind, measured; nothing I would characterize as a hissyfit. Now it seems like you’re talking about someone else or a group of people. I tread lightly, lest you start digging around and uncover my true identity!
— Tony Comstock · Jun 8, 04:22 PM · #
Joe writes:
“If you can’t afford the cost of blogging, don’t blog. Most of us who are not anonymous must be wary of what we say for fear of the repercussions. Why should anyone else be held to a lower standard?”
You’re looking at this as if the important metric is the costs and benefits to bloggers. More important considerations, however, are the costs and benefits to the audience and to public discourse generally.
My argument is that insofar as people can blog anonymously without fear of being outed, more people worth reading will take part in the blogosphere, and we’ll all be better off.
If it’s slightly unfair to bloggers who use their own names, so what? That’s a small price to pay.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 8, 04:25 PM · #
“If it’s slightly unfair to bloggers who use their own names, so what? That’s a small price to pay.”
Apples and oranges. You can hardly to the talk-show circuit, or a book tour, or be the managing editor of a new web venture and maintain your anonymity. Anonymity has its own cost.
I understand where Joe is coming from; both the real politic and as code. You have something to say? Then step out of the shadows and say it, sign our name to it. If you can’t or won’t or don’t, then don’t be surprised if it comes back to bite you on the ass. In fact, I reckon I understand that better than most.
But as with torture, we don’t let our adversaries define our code, we define it for ourselves. That’s what Whelen’s done, and in the process he’s disgraced himself, as have those who have come to his defense.
(The jury is still out on me.)
— Tony Comstock · Jun 8, 04:38 PM · #
Tony writes: “Would you do that, Joe?”
Would I personally do that? Probably not. Would it be wrong of me to do so? Of course not.
Conor writes: “You’re looking at this as if the important metric is the costs and benefits to bloggers. More important considerations, however, are the costs and benefits to the audience and to public discourse generally.”
If we were to do a complete cost/benefit analysis of the effects of pseudonymous blogging over the past decade, I have no doubt that the result has been mostly negative (the blogosphere would be a more civil place without it).
I also fail to understand why refusing to take responsibility for your words is a great benefit to the public. If you want to attack people by name, you should at least have the courage to put your own name to it.
I also have no sympathy for Publius’ reasons, particularly the “If they find out what I blog I won’t get tenure.” The implication is that the person is hiding his true viewpoint from his employer because if they really knew what he thought they wouldn’t hire him. This smells rather unethical to me.
I’m also tired of academics whining about how they need to be able to attack people using a pseudonym because failing to do so may affect their future job prospects. This is simply cowardly. Although Conor and I haven’t always agreed on the issues, I respect his willingness to put his name on his work—consequences be damned. I have no doubt that he’s hurt his job prospects at some outlets because of things he’s blogged about. (NB: I hired Conor to work for me at Culture11 and would, of course, do so again.) Why should we defend the CYA choice of people who simply aren’t willing to take responsibility for their writing?
(Again, let me clarify my basic point. There’s nothing inherently wrong with pseudonymous blogging and there are good reasons to do so. But when you use the cover to attack others then you are simply being cowardly.)
— Joe Carter · Jun 8, 04:52 PM · #
“I’m also tired of academics whining about how they need to be able to attack people using a pseudonym because failing to do so may affect their future job prospects.”
You’d have a point if the “attack” were slander, rather than just criticizing things Whelan had said and not respecting Whelan’s autoritah.
Had publius’ “attack” been, say, that he’d seen Whelan being flogged at a gay S&M club, Whelan would be in his rights pointing out that publius lives far away in order to shore up a defense that it was a false story which publius had made up.
But publius didn’t make such an attack. Whelan didn’t out publius to counter a false accusation, he outed publius because his pride was wounded.
I suspect Whelan’s response to the criticism was something along the lines of “Who is this whelp, to criticize ME! How dare a mere untenured law school employee criticize a former member of the OLC!”, and that’s why he outed publius. Whelan’s trying to pull rank. Unable to back up his argument, he’s trying an argument from authority with himself as the authority.
It has nothing to do with pseudonymity shielding publius personally from the effects of his ‘attacks’. It’s all about Whelan telling his readers that publius is lower status, so should be ignored.
— Jon H · Jun 8, 06:12 PM · #
Joe Carter says: “But when you attack people by name—as John has done—you can’t really whine when they mention you by name.”
I don’t think that follows. Publius referred to Whelan by name because that is how Whelan posts. If Whelan posted under a pseudonym, that is most likely how publius would have referred to him.
In other words, he did not make the choice for Whelan in the same way Whelan made it for him.
— Zuzu · Jun 8, 08:40 PM · #
Slightly off topic but is anyone else surprised at the fact that NRO which hosted Ed Whelan’s unveiling of Publius also hosts Jack Dunphy , a Pseudonymous columnist writing about the LAPD?
— Rajesh · Jun 8, 10:51 PM · #
A few folks keep saying that pseudonymity is “cowardly,” as if that were some kind of argument. Fine, it’s cowardly. So what? What has that got to do with whether it’s appropriate or responsible to make someone’s identity public against their will? Calling it the “cost of blogging” is just question begging; if Whelan shared the view that “outing” is a gross breach of etiquette—and given that this appears to be the view of the vast majority, that makes it pretty much true by definition—then it wouldn’t be the “cost” of blogging.
— Julian Sanchez · Jun 9, 01:42 AM · #
On pseudonymous blogging, there’s a difference between keeping your real identity low profile (like me, not using my last name, so that a simple Google search doesn’t bring up all my posts) and expecting to have a lasting shield of anonymity. There should be no expectation of such a thing on the Internet, because, as Publius discovered, it is impossible. I won’t go so far as to call it cowardly, but it is rather naive.
Violating that anonymity is certainly no counter-argument, and to do so casually is indeed poor manners. But I’m afraid I can’t get worked up about it one way or another.
And of course, it’s a separate issue, but if I knew that Tony Comstock was a professor at Wheaton, I would immediately make that information public and do what I could to get him fired. It would have nothing to do with any personal animosity brought on by his arguments, but it is because I believe his actions and opinions are immoral and should be suppressed on their own merits.
— Ethan · Jun 9, 04:28 AM · #
If we were to do a complete cost/benefit analysis of the effects of pseudonymous blogging over the past decade, I have no doubt that the result has been mostly negative (the blogosphere would be a more civil place without it).
What is certainly true is that many, many fewer people would be able to blog or comment if they always had to use their RL names. As Tony rightly pointed out above, most women (for instance) would be imprudent to do so. For the majority of people (who are mostly not financially and personally secure men, accountable to no-one) blogging under one’s RL name would be a dangerous luxury — your standard would make a desert and call it peace.
— Doctor Science · Jun 9, 04:29 AM · #
“What is certainly true is that many, many fewer people would be able to blog or comment if they always had to use their RL names.”
After WWII America’s sniper training program fell into a sorry state, and some have attributed this to misplaced ideas about cowardice. Metaphorically speaking, I would imagine that Joe’s concern is that hiding behind the stone fences along the Bay Road not be conflated with hiding behind woman and children.
— Tony Comstock · Jun 9, 12:32 PM · #