On pseudonymity

There's been loads of talk over the past couple of days about the unfortunately-departed Tiny Perfect Blog. But most of the discussion seems to be riddled with undue potshots at one of the better political bloggers I've read based solely on the anonymity behind the blog - and while there's one unfortunate side to the story which doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet, it's worth taking some time to make the case in defence of anonymous or pseudonymous blogging in the face of that misplaced criticism.

The core of the argument against TPB in particular and anonymity in general seems to be highlighted by Graham Thomson:

Tiny Perfect wasn't the only anonymous blog on Alberta politics, but it gained a reputation as the nastiest. Most bloggers put their names front and centre, which tends to make them think twice before hitting "send." The AUPE's Climenhaga has been running a personal blog since 2007 and says while he doesn't want to sound holier-than-thou compared to Tiny Perfect, "if my opinion is going to have any validity in my community it's important to say who I am."

What's of course utterly lacking in Thomson's analysis is any basis for concluding that anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers are generally any less likely than named ones to "think twice before hitting 'send'", or any less entitled to have their opinions heard. After all, whether an individual is named or not, credibility within the blogosphere tends to come from exactly the same factors.

When it comes to opinions, there's especially little reason to bother differentiating between named and anonymous sources. The value of the opinion expressed within a blog is bound to come down to a question of how readers respond to the blog in substance: an insightful observation or compelling argument is no less so for being written anonymously, just as a piece of poorly-reasoned tripe doesn't become any more convincing by having a name attached to it.

In that sense, the blogosphere at least holds out the prospect of a meritocratic structure: the value of an opinion is at least theoretically found in its own content, such that a person who isn't well-known or even named can reach a wide audience with a good point (or be skewered for a bad one).

Which isn't to say that personal connections don't dictate at least in part how widely a particular view ends up being distributed, giving an advantage to people or profiles who are better known. But there too, there's little reason why an extended track record of connections through a blog persona should be ignored entirely.

What about factual assertions? Again, the major question there is whether a blogger's track record matches the facts which can be verified from other sources including one's own observations.

Of course, one may see reason to be suspicious where any blogger without a track record of accuracy makes implausible or inflammatory claims. But there's no reason why the same content would be seen as any more or less trustworthy depending on whether it's written by brand-new anonymous blogger Mr. X., or brand-new named blogger John Smith whose judgment is equally untested and untestable. And where an anonymous blog has provided accurate information in the past, there's no reason why the mere fact of anonymity should prevent readers from considering that fact in assessing future information from the same source.

And there should be no doubt that anonymity is far from decisive in either direction in assessing a blogger's judgment. While Thomson paints TPB as "the nastiest (anonymous blog)" in Alberta, he distinctly fails to take into account the far greater amount of vitriol and nastiness to which others have happily attached their names. And I can assure Thomson that at least some pseudonymous bloggers are interested enough in their own reputation that they do think twice before hitting "send" even if their names aren't attached to the blog.

With all that out of the way, though, there are a couple of points where my own perspective parts company with that of TPB. And the differences might hint at what I'd see as the biggest questions which would-be anonymous bloggers may want to keep in mind.

When I started blogging semi-anonymously, that choice was based on a combination of uncertainty as to how my own experiment in blogging would play out, and a fairly gentle request from my employer. While I've seen fit to keep the blog in the same format, that's been more a matter of sticking to a default than any determined commitment to avoid having my name known. And a growing list of people has come to know who I am personally - meaning that if anybody was particularly motivated to "out" me, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to do so.

But there are two reasons why that would provoke far less of a concern for me personally than it seemed to for TPB.

First, while I don't recall the blog being as inflammatory as Thomson makes it out to be, it does seem that TPB wound up making some enemies who saw the blog as a direct threat. That may not be such a bad result in terms of serving the gadfly role where blogs can often do their best work - but it also leads to a virtual certainty that somebody will "take an interest" in exposing and attacking the individual behind a blog.

Of course, I've spent plenty of time in the realms of snark and satire myself. But I'd like to think that I've also taken a respectful enough posture toward those who don't share my viewpoints that nobody holds the kind of grudge that would make them want to move past the medium of discussion of issues in the blogosphere.

More importantly, though, I'm also lucky enough to be in a position where anonymity is more a matter of convenience than necessity. That certainly won't be true for some potential bloggers, and apparently wasn't for TPB - but it's always kept the perceived risk of being named at a level where I've seen little reason to worry.

In sum, for anybody wondering whether blogging anonymously is at all tenable, these are the factors to keep in mind. Are you expecting to be blogging in a way that will provoke people to want to do you harm? And will you in fact consider yourself harmed substantially if your identity gets made public?

Unfortunately, the answers for TPB seem to have been "yes" and "yes", making for a highly dangerous combination. And we've lost what looked to be one of the better NDP blogs I've seen as a result. But while the result may be a cautionary tale for anybody considering following in TPB's footsteps as an anonymous blogger, there's no basis for spinning the incident as reason to slam the nature of anonymous or pseudonymous blogging in general.