![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One reason pseudonymity is important
Aug. 6th, 2011 02:35 amTo recap: Google+ has a policy saying that, if you want a Google+ account, you have to have some version of your legal name as your account name. (Facebook does, too, actually.)
For what it's worth, I may as well say right here that I post to LiveJournal and only crosspost to Facebook, because I like LJ better, and one reason is that, as it turns out, "Xiphias" isn't the name on my birth certificate. But I've used it since I was sixteen.
Why does that matter? Because pseudonyms are a greater guarantee of free speech than anything else. I'm posting this from the United States, where we have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- but that doesn't mean that you can't still get in trouble for posting unpopular opinions. The United States Constitution only guarantees that the government won't arrest you for your opinions -- but an employer could choose not to hire you, you could be ostracized -- and, well, are you really sure that the government won't arrest you?
In Great Britain, freedom of the press is not as wide-ranging as in the United States, and, if you want to publicize something that is critical of a person . . . you might get into trouble.
And LiveJournal is owned by a Russian company -- and I assure you that the Russians aren't all that nice about not taking revenge on people with unpopular opinions.
Anonymity is one way to deal with this, but it's limited. All anonymous people are effectively equal -- some are brilliant, and some are morons, and, well, most of them are morons. So it's easy -- and generally wise -- to ignore most anonymous comments, most everywhere. I allow "anonymous comments" here on my LJ, but most people who comment "anonymously" often sign their words.
So -- anonymity means that you are ignorable. Real names mean that you are vulnerable. What to do?
Pseudonyms. They were vital in creating the United States -- writing newspaper articles about revolting from Great Britain was sedition, and necessary to make a case for public support. And, of course, anonymous articles were ignorable. But if you could create a persona, a consistent and congruent personality, you could write a series of essays, not a simple ignorable one-off rant, but an actual ongoing argument. You could interact with people, you could BE someone.
John Adams wrote as "Novanglus". For other purposes, he'd alsoblogged written newspaper articles under the names "U", for some of his general political theory, and "Humphery Ploughjogger", for some of his . . . less serious stuff.
He was able to create arguments, coherent arguments, and build a reputation, while still staying somewhat safe.
Anonymity doesn't allow you to build a reputation, to build ethos. And ethos is absolutely NECESSARY if you're going to convince people of anything significant. People have to know who you are.
Pseudonymity is absolutely necessary to a free society. The ability to express opinions without fear of reprisal is a check against power.
And that's why the powerful don't like it.
For what it's worth, I may as well say right here that I post to LiveJournal and only crosspost to Facebook, because I like LJ better, and one reason is that, as it turns out, "Xiphias" isn't the name on my birth certificate. But I've used it since I was sixteen.
Why does that matter? Because pseudonyms are a greater guarantee of free speech than anything else. I'm posting this from the United States, where we have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- but that doesn't mean that you can't still get in trouble for posting unpopular opinions. The United States Constitution only guarantees that the government won't arrest you for your opinions -- but an employer could choose not to hire you, you could be ostracized -- and, well, are you really sure that the government won't arrest you?
In Great Britain, freedom of the press is not as wide-ranging as in the United States, and, if you want to publicize something that is critical of a person . . . you might get into trouble.
And LiveJournal is owned by a Russian company -- and I assure you that the Russians aren't all that nice about not taking revenge on people with unpopular opinions.
Anonymity is one way to deal with this, but it's limited. All anonymous people are effectively equal -- some are brilliant, and some are morons, and, well, most of them are morons. So it's easy -- and generally wise -- to ignore most anonymous comments, most everywhere. I allow "anonymous comments" here on my LJ, but most people who comment "anonymously" often sign their words.
So -- anonymity means that you are ignorable. Real names mean that you are vulnerable. What to do?
Pseudonyms. They were vital in creating the United States -- writing newspaper articles about revolting from Great Britain was sedition, and necessary to make a case for public support. And, of course, anonymous articles were ignorable. But if you could create a persona, a consistent and congruent personality, you could write a series of essays, not a simple ignorable one-off rant, but an actual ongoing argument. You could interact with people, you could BE someone.
John Adams wrote as "Novanglus". For other purposes, he'd also
He was able to create arguments, coherent arguments, and build a reputation, while still staying somewhat safe.
Anonymity doesn't allow you to build a reputation, to build ethos. And ethos is absolutely NECESSARY if you're going to convince people of anything significant. People have to know who you are.
Pseudonymity is absolutely necessary to a free society. The ability to express opinions without fear of reprisal is a check against power.
And that's why the powerful don't like it.