What’s In A Name?
Pseudonyms like “miss representation” or “Xman” or “Pesky Illustrator” or “Inaudible Nonsense,” or even the passionate, erudite “DesignMaven,” are not cute, they are cowardly. This indictment holds true for those who only use their first names as well (the many known only as Nancy or Chris, Dan or Steve). If a blogger or responder does not have the courage to own up to his or her ideas then why should readers accept or respond to them?
Oh, I don’t know, those who care more about the message than the messenger? Those who resist the lure of ad hominem? Those who resist a 1984 world where your every move is recorded and searchable from the moment it happens and until the human race dies off?
Having a pseudonym is not about, as some argue, building a brand story or mystique; it is about masking identity, which is inherently deceitful. Unless one has a good reason — like being on a black list or having a life in peril by a repressive government — the practice of anonymity should be considered unacceptable.
What does it even mean to be deceitful? Well, according to the dictionary:
- Given to cheating or deceiving.
- Deliberately misleading; deceptive. See Synonyms at dishonest.
And the synonyms:
- Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
- Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.
Unless you think “John” or “Simen” or “bananarama84” is the real and full name of those who use them, then there is no dishonesty going on, since no one is trying to be anything they’re not.
Unless the full identity is crucial to the credibility of the content (rarely, only when confidential information is concerned), there is no need.
Perhaps he’s after anonymous assholes. I don’t know. He has no right to command authority on the internet, though, and for that I’m glad.
By the way, my full name is no secret. If you really want it, you can email me. I’m hard pressed to imagine why you’d want it, though.
