It’s almost hilarious to find people disputing Dan under the pseudonyms “Publius” and “Marcus Agrippa.” Almost hilarious. Really, it’s pathetic.

Mr. Friedman, I of course don’t know you from Adam, but you’re commenting about an ongoing discussion of which you’re not part. For what it’s worth, I’m “Marcus Agrippa”. The name was chosen as a joke, specifically to mock Dan in a gentle way after his decision to insult our readers in comments at the Popehat blog.

I’m happy that you’re brave enough to sign your name in discussing a brouhaha at a blog which you obviously don’t read, in a context of which you know nothing, because it would allow me to ignore anything you write in the future were I so inclined. Or even to write a blogpost, mocking you, that would stick to the front page of a Google search for your name forever. But I’m not so inclined. I’d simply suggest a little further reading, and a little forethought and hesitance in pulling the trigger before posting in the future. Of course cowards aren’t known for their wisdom, but neither are hotheads.

Perhaps Jonathan Adler, a tenured professor at your school who used to blog pseudonymously as “Juan Non-Volokh,” could illuminate you as to why some choose not to use their names in blogging. Adler may be a coward (I wouldn’t know), but he’s not unwise.

Patrick at Popehat

Patrick,

Precisely what have I missed? You were defending the practice of commenting anonymously, no?

As to Professor Adler, I do he think erred on the over-cautious side in posting all those years as Juan non-Volokh, but I excuse him because he abandoned the practice as soon as he got tenure and therefore no longer felt threatened by being identified as a blogger. You see, at the time, he at least had the excuse that he did not have tenure and blogging then was largely considered both “beneath” the efforts of an academic and something that detracted from the need to do tenure-worthy work. The truth be told, though, anyone among his colleagues who paid attention knew perfectly well who Juan non-Volokh was.

And yes, of course thorough preparation is a cornerstone of elegance, but, again, please do tell me what I missed. Were you not defending the practice of anonymous writing? And why, please tell, do you feel writing anonymously is necessary? Do you seriously contend that anonymity does not detract from the force of one’s words?

Incidentally, I do not have tenure, but I am willing to stand behind my words.

Patrick — the issue was whether anonymous writing online is justified. Do you think so?

My point was that anonymous writing represents an unwillingness to put one’s name to one’s word and therefore detracts from one’s credibility. Do you think not?

As to Professor Adler: I believe his writing under a pseudonym detracted from the persuasive power of what he wrote during those years. Do I think it was cowardly? Well, not really, considering that I could appreciate the threat he perceived at the time. Would I have come to the same decision? Plainly not, since I’ve been blogging for over 7 years and never in my 14 plus years of teaching have enjoyed the job security of tenure.

Why was Professor Adler’s writing less meaningful when it was anonymous? Because, among other things, one could not identify, as one can now, that he is closely affiliated with and supported by PERC, which has been funded by, among others, the Bradley Foundation, the Olin Foundation Sarah Scaife, JM Foundation, Lambe Foundation, McKenna Foundation, Earhart Foundation, Koch Foundation, Carthage Foundation and Castle Rock Foundation — foundations that for decades have worked to direct national policy toward the deregulation of industry and privatization. PERC received $4,175,875 from all funding sources combined from 1985 to 2002. Since 1998 PERC has also received $80,000 from ExxonMobil.

That certainly casts a certain light on Professor Adler’s advocacy of “market solutions” to environmental problems.

Is it wrong of Professor Adler to be backed by PERC? Of course not. But knowing who he is and who finds it in their interests to fund his research certainly should be part of the conversation.

It is cowardly if there’s no good reason for to write under a pseudonym? Yes. Are the reasons rare in 2010 on the internet? Yes. Do people abuse anonymity? Of course. Does anonymity even with good reason detract from the power of one’s words? Yes. And that’s my my main point. A second point is that if one does not perceive a genuine threat anonymity is cowardice.

For the viewing public, please note that when I responded to Mr. Friedman’s comment 5 it consisted only of the first two paragraphs.

The latter portions of the comment, paragraphs 3-7, were added between the time I began my reply and submitted it. I will concede that Mr. Friedman has responded to one of my concerns, as to Juan Non-Volokh, though in a rather less forthright manner than one would have expected from the bold man who initially called Adler (by implication) an unwise coward.

Ken — I believe anonymity detracts from credibility. I believe that there are situations in which anonymity is called for, but I believe those situations are rare for Americans in 2010 and even when there is a reason for anonymity I believe it detracts from one’s credibility. I also think that in the absence of one of those rare good reasons for anonymity, anonymity is cowardice. Finally, I believe the exchange back and forth on your site on the question was insane. Readers can judge all those positions for themselves, and they can judge me for themselves too.

Mr. Friedman, I certainly agree that the exchange was insane, though we apparently disagree on the etiology of the disorder. I believe the exchange was insane because a vulgarian, responding to a compliment, derailed the blog’s comments by insulting its authors and readers using terms like “homo” and suggesting that they need to work with retarded children on weekends…

Incidentally, that’s something I actually do, though there’s no way the nitwit in question would know. I’m a board member and volunteer for my local branch of ARC, and my brother is developmentally disabled (a preferred term) but you’ll just have to take me on faith for that…

That rather derailed what began as a polite discussion. Do you believe that we made things insane, or was it your hero Dan Hull? When you teach a class at law school, do you use terms like “homo” and “retard”? Is that the fashion these days? It’s been a while for me, perhaps I’m a genteel relic.

Anyway, since it interests you I’ll tell you some of my own reasons for blogging anonymously.

First of all, I don’t care whether you, or people like you, are persuaded by my name. I don’t present myself as an authority figure, nor do I seek to add to my non-existent authority through grandiose titles. You do, but your title means nothing to me, nor does your name. I’m more than happy to let my words and links (as this is the internet) speak for themselves. (Just between us girls, if it matters, I have titles even more impressive than associate professor at Case Western Reserve. I’m a recognized Saint in the Church of the Subgenius.)

Second, it’s a weird, scary internet. Many years ago, I did use my name on the internet. A strange woman in the Cleveland area (oddly enough) noticed something that I wrote, tracked me down, and began calling my home to proposition me late at night. Since I’d recently married, this was a bit, shall we say … awkward? I had to change my email address, my telephone number, and to keep the new one unlisted. I’ve been a bit leery of using my real name on the internet ever since, a fear that any of your former students who practices domestic law (they do teach family law at Case Western, don’t they?) might endorse.

Third, I’m not blogging for commercial advantage, nor do I seek to establish a scholarly reputation. I make not one dime from my presence on the internet. I write to amuse myself, and to amuse others, some of whom have become friends with whom I do share my name. And though it’s vulgar to say so, a comparison of page ranks, Google site link listings, and technorati authority shows that Ken and I are rather more successful at writing on the internet (using the crass metric of “how many people read it?” than you and your colleagues, even though we use pseudonyms.</em?

Good day.

(1) From the first comment on the Popehat post on Hull’s piece on anonymity, the entire discussion turned from substance to insanity. I am trying to deal with substance.

(2) I’m sorry about the stalker, Patrick, but I hardly feel that the fear of the possibility of being stalked is a basis for anonymity. If there’s some reason the topic, the forum, or anything else raises the risk of stalking to something beyond random insanity, I would understand it (as I understood Adler’s adoption of his pseudonym).

(3) I will stick by my point that anonymity detracts from credibility. I’ve tried to explain some reasons why, including the presence of bias that words alone don’t disclose. I would add that the speaker’s character has for thousands of years been recognized as an element of the persuasive power of his words. It’s the “ethos” of the logos/pathos/ethos framework of Classical rhetoric, though I would imagine you guys are already familiar with that.

(4) No, I’m not the gatekeeper. I’ve stated my view that anonymity detracts from the power of one’s words and the reasons for it. I hardly think my view will become law. Incidentally, I allow anonymous comments on my blog. I consider the anonymity part of what readers take into account in judging the force of the comment. I certainly don’t think it adds to that force.

(5) And I’ve stated my view that a part of the reach for anonymity is fear of being willing to stand behind one’s words. It’s the type of fear I find too common among my students, and I wish they’d cast fear aside and step into the breach on behalf of themselves and their clients.

As the only aggressively non-anonymous blogger at Popehat, I obviously disagree with my co-bloggers about how necessary anonymity is for me but I don’t disagree at all with their choice to remain anonymous. It is probably true that anonymity leads to an initial lack of credibility. That said, a presumption that anonymous=not-credible is ad hominem and foolish. Frankly, bragging about being public on the internet is embarrassing dick-swinging.

People have a lot of reasons for staying anonymous on the internet. Stalking is one. Working in a field where your political or social opinions are irrelevant to your job but any whiff of controversy is extremely relevant to your continued employment is another. The First Amendment doesn’t apply to private actors and I can see why someone wouldn’t want to be the guy who martyrs his ability to meet his mortgage in order to call a cop a fascist on the internet.

You don’t get credibility from being public; you get it from being persuasive. If you choose to not read anything from pseudonymous authors, that’s your loss.

Well this is certainly an interesting conversation.

Obviously there are differing opinions as to whether or not anonymity is valuable in the context of posting on the interwebs. Currently, as is readily apparent from my blog, I choose to post and comment under my real name because I want what I post on my blog and elsewhere to be associated with my IRL person. That being said, there are a variety of circumstances in which there are things I would not share under my own name.

Not sure about everyone else involved in this brouhaha, but I’ve been on the internet for a loooonnnggg time. I can recall dialing in to my local BBS with my 9600 baud modem in DOS during the 80s – I was a nerdy kid. No one used their real name. Through the nineties, things sped up and more people jumped online but using one’s real name was still thought of as odd. I grew up on messageboards and forums, and very, very few people ever used their real names. Any authority or respect that was given to people was based purely on the veracity of their words and their seniority (time registered on the board/post count).

I started my first, personal blog back in 2000. I used my real name. However, the circle of people that were aware of it numbered in the dozens. I kept it going for a few years before I let it fizzle out. At that time in my life, while I was open with my real name online, I also wasn’t trying to say anything meaningful.

Since the early-to-mid 00s more people who have some level of “authority” or “seniority” IRL seem to have come online, especially with blogs. These people want their IRL status to transfer to the interwebs. As such, it’s valuable for them to utilize their real name as it carries some level of weight.

I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that my generation growing up on the internet and subsequent explosion of Facebook, etc. has led people (particularly older people) to become comfortable with using their real name online. However, this ignores the past twenty years or so of the internet in which anonymity was the norm. This is particularly true in places like messageboards and forums. Maybe a person is a devotee of World of Warcraft or some other videogame but doesn’t want it to be known in their office. They use a pseudonym, in order to keep their true identity private while being able to enjoy their pastime (in game, boards, posts, blog, etc) while engaging with others. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with this as that’s how I’ve always known the internet to be. There is definitely a trend to people being more open about who they really are, but demanding it comes across as odd.

So when I come across the words of an anonymous poster, I give them due course as I would if it was written by someone I know. That’s one of the benefits, and perils, of the internet: everyone is on an equal playing field. Very few people are able to transfer any sense of “authority” or recognition to their writings online. You must be judged along side everyone else, even if you use your real name and are a Rhodes Scholar and the next poster, “Marcus Agrippa,” is really a 16-year old kid posting from his parent’s basement. If what either has to say has weight, give it credence. If not, not.

As a caveat, I will say that I do have a higher degree of respect when in regards to people who post under their own name. When someone is willing place their words up to scrutiny with their real name attached, it does elicit a heightened sense of regard. But, for those who choose not to do so, I am not going to discount what they have to say out of principal.

Regards

There’s no doubt in my mind that anonymity is the reason for so much of the nastiness that breaks out in the blogosphere. Anonymity, be it in student evaluations or in anonymous blog posts and comments, seems to invite the release of hostilities that are more properly channeled when people are identified with their words and actions.

Like calling people “homos,” “wimps,” “third-rate,” “out to lunch,” “peasants” and using retarded children to make a cheap joke at the expense of others?

Dude, we only came here because WordPress alerted us you’d commented on one our posts. Never heard of you before yesterday. But you KEEP DOUBLING DOWN ON YOUR BET ABOUT DAN HULL WHEN ALL EVIDENCE SUGGESTS MR. HULL POSTS HORRIFICALLY INSULTING TERMS, UNDER HIS OWN NAME, SUCH AS:

homos,” “wimps,” “third-rate,” “out to lunch,” “peasants” and using retarded children to make a cheap joke at the expense of others

to suggest that anonymous writers are rude. Respectfully, you keep repeating your point, but you also keep ignoring your point that the only example you’ve given is one in which a NON-ANONYMOUS PERSON hurls the VILEST INSULTS at people who use pseudonyms.

Revise your post. Because you’re not anonymous, I know everything about you now, from your name, your employment, your education, what you write elsewhere, and much else. None of this is to threaten you. It’s simply to say that I know you’re an intelligent, thoughtful person.

Why won’t you back down on the ridiculous example you chose? If I were to suggest a pseudonym for you, it would be “Ahab,” because you won’t admit that you’re chasing a white whale. Or perhaps “TK-421,” because your usual intelligence isn’t at its post. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

ADMIT YOUR MISTAKE. ADMIT THAT YOU HELD DAN HULL UP AS AN EXEMPLAR AND A ROLE MODEL WHEN, BASED ON YOUR SOLE LINK, ALL EVIDENCE IS THAT DAN HULL IS A BOORISH LOUT!

The evidence simply doesn’t support your case, counselor.

OBEY!! OBEY!! OBEY!!

Your blog post is pure fail. Just because bloggers are anonymous to you, doesn’t mean they are anonymous. I happen to know the Christian names of many anonymous bloggers.

Why do you feel entitled to know the identify of given bloggers? Who are to make such demands? You are a nobody – in the blogging world and real life.

You need treatment for your narcissism.

Okay, first, full disclosure: Peter is my brother, and someone I not only love but also admire.

I am a writer. I am not a lawyer. I write books and articles and stories for a living.

But when I read the “dude, I never even heard of you before” reference I thought, ah, but now you only seem to be making my brother’s point:

With anonymity, beyond lack of some essential credibility, all manner of hostility begins to seep out.

I kept thinking as I read of Edward R. Murrow (in part because just yesterday I walked past his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame) and of Eugene McCarthy. What if Murrow had simply posted dozens of intelligent blogs about McCarthy’s unscrupulous, swaggering behavior but had been unwilling to let us know who he was, what he stood for, who it was who was saying these things?

I’m not a blogger. I do not always read posts and engage in long arguments about them. I do teach writing memoir and personal essay, and I’ve noticed that many of my students–those who are most adept at and familiar with blogging–are the same people who are most fearful about saying what they actually think, writing truth from their point of view. They are forever “fudging the truth,” or (and this I do consider a fine and beautiful alternative to nonfiction) turning to writing fiction.

But surely everyone here (especially the lawyers) understands that not knowing that someone is, say for instance, a CEO for BP (as an extreme example), when he argues in favor of deregulation makes for at least some lack of credibility.

Or have I missed something? I am tired. And this post does have a lot of words. And many of these words (particularly those from the anonymous writers) seem to be personal attacks.

Why, for instance, write something like: “You are a nobody–int he blogging world and real life. You need treatment for your narcissism.”

That’s so deeply personal, so unnecessarily cruel. I am tempted to say, “Several of you need treatment for your anger issues.”

But I have no idea who so many of you are, I will not say that.

Various Greek sects worshiped mathematics because the idea of a proof meant that you didn’t have to trust the messenger. If you don’t believe the Pythagorean theorem, there are many ways that I might convince you, none of which make a reliance on my authority. Rather, each proof, each argument, is itself something that you can think through, check, and verify on your own.

If you read popehat for any length of time, you will develop a sense for who Peter and Ken are. You will learn what sorts of arguments they make, how they research things that interest them and so on. Each time your read one of their posts you have a chance to think for yourself whether it is something that you are willing to believe. Depending on the results of this, you might even come to trust their analysis, or at least trust it to be interesting. This really shouldn’t be surprising. Newscasters develop reputations with and without stage names. Novelists develop reputations whether or not their legal name appears on the cover.

If you wrote a book, would you want people to buy it because it was written by the sister of some law professor? Or would you want people to buy it because the book was actually well written?

Regarding bias, when I am reading things like this on the internet, I do ask myself a question. The question isn’t who pays the author’s paycheck. The question isn’t even whether he finds his own arguments convincing. The question is whether I find them convincing.

Yes, for thousands of years people have sought objective, “mathematical” proof of matters that pertain to human values, behavior, and belief. And the Ancient Greek Sophists, in contrast to the Pythagoreans and Plato, recognized that when it comes to these human matters, it gets a whole lot more complicated. I wouldn’t deny for a moment that over time an anonymous author can develop a persona (or “ethos” in the jargon of rhetoric). What I would not deny either (a) the absence of a recognizable person behind that pseudonym detracts from his credibility, (b) the refusal to identify oneself on the kinds of matters addressed at Popehat arises from fear, (c) sometimes that fear is so great and the message so important that the hit on credibility is worth the anonymity, and (e) sometimes it isn’t.

Novelists write fiction.

If I wrote a book, I’d want people to buy it. If they bought it because of who I am, hey, that’s great. If you want to are genuinely concerned with getting a message across, you ought to employ every opportunity to get that message across you can. There’s no shame in that. It’s what effective communication is.

SOrry for my english not so well, but me think that you are write too pointe.