Democracy in America

On anonymity

Is outing anonymous bloggers wrong?

By The Economist | AUSTIN

THE current controversy in the blogosphere concerns the "outing" of an anonymous blogger. Ed Whelan, blogging for the National Review, was frustrated because a blogger known as "publius" had been "biting at [his] ankles for months". As a form of retaliation, Mr Whelan published the blogger's real name, John Blevins. Mr Blevins was appalled, as were many bloggers, who argued that this was a purely vindictive move on the part of Mr Whelan. Mr Whelan and his defenders responded by saying, in effect, that it's cowardly to hide behind a shield of anonymity. After several days of back-and-forth Mr Whelan apologised to Mr Blevins on the grounds that his conduct had not been charitable. For more details on the situation, see Google.

As a quasi-anonymous blogger this was an interesting debate. Our situation at Democracy in America is somewhat unique. We are theoretically anonymous. Although your group bloggers are differentiated by the datelines at the top of each post, that is somewhat tricky because there is more than one York and /Washington. However, it wouldn't be that difficult to figure out who any of us is. We could easily be held accountable for any opinion, but at the same time, we are insulated from the intensely personal criticism leveled at some bloggers. Of course, it helps that we're a couth bunch and so are our commenters.

I'm happy with the model, though it has some disadvantages. For example, we're not showered in public glory for our Webby-award-winning blog (tiny violin). Another consideration: As Sonia Sotomayer might say, identity matters. Our readers might react differently to a post if they knew that the writer was an American, or a woman, or has a cousin in jail, or their mom taught in public schools, or whatever. But as it is our arguments have to stand on their own. I think this is, for the most part, a worthwhile constraint.

The whole issue of retaliatory outing could be avoided if everyone on the internet would play nicely, but some bloggers (anonymous or otherwise) have an incentive to shout, rail, drip scorn, heap abuse, hammer on the table, etc. It drives traffic. That's their prerogative—it's a free country. But as a practical matter, no one should expect that they will be able to stay anonymous, because it's a free country for the outers, too. As for the ethics of outing, surely it depends on the situation. I would say you shouldn't do it unless there's a very good reason, a better reason than just, I don't like this person. What's the point? But my fellow bloggers might disagree. On a somewhat related note, I generally don't think closeted gay politicians should be outed.

What do you all think?

(Photo credit: AFP)

More from Democracy in America

The fifth Democratic primary debate showed that a cull is overdue


The election for Kentucky’s governor will be a referendum on Donald Trump


A state court blocks North Carolina’s Republican-friendly map

The gerrymandering fix could help Democrats keep the House in 2020