Those of you that closely follow the goings-on at Daily Kos have probably known about this for some time, but I just learned of it today. For a long time DKos’s leading commentator on legal issues, especially those relating to the Supreme Court, was “Armando,” who prided himself on his irascibility among other things. Personally, I almost never liked what he had to say, but lots of readers at that site loved having him around. Whatever – that’s not important now.
Armando has now been “outed,” which is to say his true identity has been publicly revealed. And as a result, Armando has apparently given up blogging all together. It’s unclear to me why, though perhaps he thinks his far-left views would negatively impact the profitability of his corporate law firm.
Quitting is his choice, of course, and far be it from me to declare that he’s doing the wrong thing. But honestly, what could he have been thinking? The guy writes incendiary post after incendiary post on the front page of the most heavily-trafficked political blog in the country – under a “pseudonym” that consists of his real first name – and he thinks he’s going to remain anonymous? The only surprise is that this didn’t happen long ago. One commenter on Armando’s FCW post writes “With all due respect, Armando, you’re not, and have never been all that anonymous. I figured out exactly who you were back in Spring, 2004 (in the old Clark blog days) with an easy Martindale search.”
A lot of commenters in that monstrously long (over 1,000 comments) thread were angry about his being outed, and expressed sympathy with his position. But others were not so charitable to him. This one gets it about right:
At some point, we have to be unafraid of our opinions and stand up for who we are and what we believe in. Otherwise, what the hell is the point of all this?
Changing the world via blogger handles? I’m not sure that will work.
Look, blogging is fun. Blogging anonymously is really fun, because you don’t have to take personal responsibility for what you’re saying – you can just throw it out there and watch what happens. But, as Armando has apparently learned the hard way, there is some danger in saying things publicly that you’d rather not have your real name be associated with. It’s all fun and games until someone … you know the rest.
But also, there’s supposed to be more to blogging than just fun – personally, I spend way too much time on this for it just to be for laughs. IMHO, anonymity is probably a big part of why a lot of what Armando said, however vociferously he said it (and it was plenty vociferous), had very little impact on events in the real world. At some point, any blogger who wants to be taken seriously outside the blogosphere – essential, if we want to affect elections, confirmation battles, and other “real world” events – needs to step out into the sunlight (among other things, you can’t even do TV appearances if you’re unwilling to be publicly identified). Kos’s identity is public – always has been, as far as I know. The guys at MyDD all post under their full names. Josh Marshall, Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum, Bill Scher, Jane Hamsher, John Aravosis, just about every serious blogger has gone public.
It’s the same around here. Almost every area blogger is either publicly identified right on the blog, or is so easy to identify that it amounts to the same thing. (Lynne, Susan, Andy, Steve, Chris, Mike, Michael, as well as the three of us – I could go on and on, but you get the point.) I consider that to be a very good thing, and I have no doubt that it’s part of why the quality of blogging around here is so high.
The morals of Armando’s sorry tale seem to me to be these. First, never ever assume that you are anonymous on the internet. Second, don’t assume that ideas will always thrive on their own merits. They can do that to some extent, but particularly when ideas need to be converted into action – as was the case, for example, in the Supreme Court confirmation debates – I think they really suffer from not having a personality behind them. It’s just human nature to want to know who is exhorting you to do something before you do it. Third, have the courage of your convictions. If you’ve got something you think everyone needs to hear, it’s surely important enough to put your own name and face behind it.
And to you anonymous BMGers: fear not. We’re not going to make you go public – our “policy,” such as it is, hasn’t changed. But I do see the Armando thing as a cautionary tale, and one that suggests that Bob, our principal proponent of ending anonymity (to increase the blogosphere’s influence, among other reasons), is probably right.
I’ve tried not to wade too deeply into the debate about anonymous posting or not, but I’ve never assumed that anything I do on the internet, a public sphere, is even remotely private.
<
p>
Quite frankly, being open with who you are is a plus if you’re an activist blogger, as some of us surely are. In my (little) experience sofar, people interested in what I’m doing can more easily find me because I have my name out in the open. It’s a great networking tool.
<
p>
But I’ve never been opposed to posting under a pseudonym out of hand. Makes no sense to me to be passionate one way or the other about it. If somebody wants to post anonymously, then whatever effect they want to have in persuading people of their point or moving forward their cause takes the appropriate hit. Or, if they’re just interested in talking about politics without getting involved, that’s okay, no reason that the whole world needs to know your every political view. If somebody wants to have the “courage of their convictions,” that’s fine too. I really don’t understand why there has been so much ink spilled (or whatever the blogging equivalent is) over this.
Economics is another. I used to run an a-superstitious (a-theistic to some) blog yet I did lots of business in the bible belt. I did not want my non-religious beliefs to impact business sales so I kept things seperate.
<
p>
Sadly even though I do great work for my customers, some would hire somebody else if they knew my religious leanings. In a way it’s no different than racism but it exists just as much if not more…
by a person who had hoped to get me fired. ‘Nuff said about him.
<
p>
I chose to write not only with a pseudonym but as a persona – that of a person, William Cobbet, who wrote under a pseudonym at the birth of the free political press. I try, when I write, to espouse his point of view, and use quotes and citations which he would have known or approved of. It is part of the flavor of my blog.
<
p>
Also, I wanted my IDEAS considered on their merits – not just as a product of such and such a person, who could be dismissed.
<
p>
I feel badly for Armando, but truly, I’ve never posted anything I am ashamed to own. But people write with different styles, and surely the masked ball aspect of the Internet is part of its charm.
An interesting take, PP. Personally, I find it easier to dismiss “ideas” out of hand when I don’t know where they’re coming from. To be honest, if I had known all along that Armando was the established professional that he apparently is, I would have taken his posts more seriously and would have made more of an effort to look behind his unnecessarily angry rhetoric. As it was, it was easy to write him off as a nut.
<
p>
As to the masked ball…I don’t mean to disparage the value of fun, charm, call it what you will. But again, at some point we ought to be in this thing for more than that.
First of all, a lot of the founding fathers wrote under pseudonyms. I would argue that they did indeed “change the world”. There’s a long tradition of pseudonymous speech in America, particularly where (as is the case here) the “publisher” is aware of the identity of the author, even if the readers are not.
<
p>
That said, there are two different things going on in this story, the first is how to go about being anonymous. The only way to be secure in your anonymity is to never let anyone else know who you are — no meeting people, no hints about your job or location, no appearing on blogger ethics panels, etc. In my personal experience, remaining anonymous in this way was too much of a hindrance to the kind of blogging I wanted to do. After about a year of Googlenymity (you couldn’t Google my name and find my blog), I finally put my full name to my site.
<
p>
The other issue is one of netiquette. One of the rules I try to abide by is to always refer to people online by the name they call themselves, even if I know their real name. People are anonymous or Googlenonynous for their own reasons, and they should be the ones who decide to make their identities public, even if their real names are known to a small group of people. Perhaps it is naive to expect people to exend this courtesy to others in the blogosphere, but individuals should be allowed to release their identities on their own terms.
It certainly was not nice of the people who “outed” Armando to do it. But it was also totally predictable that it was going to happen sooner or later – as I said, the remarkable thing is that it wasn’t sooner. He was too prominent to expect that his cover wouldn’t be blown.
<
p>
And your point about “the kind of blogging [you] wanted to do” is my point as well. What you want to do is affect change in your community – that’s why you’re a Deval delegate, etc. It’s possible to effect that kind of change anonymously, but only to a very limited extent. At some point you have to step out, which is what you’ve done, and good on ya for doing it. The Federalist papers, I think, are no longer a useful illustration – that was a long time ago, and although I don’t know for sure, my sense is that pretty much everyone knew who was writing them anyway. Plus, none of us is exactly James Madison. Maybe his ideas could stand on their own…we need a little more assistance!
Dittos to Sco’s post.
<
p>
I find the lesson of Armando to be entirely on the individual level: be careful with your anonymity, and respect that of others. It is not an episode with implications for blog policy.
<
p>
But that’s just my opinion. If the hosts of BMG are convinced a non-anomymous forum has merit…why don’t you just make that the policy? Give everyone a two-week window to post their identities, those who don’t, get scrubbed.
<
p>
If we’re going to do that, great. If we’re not, let’s all call it a done deal and move on.
Didn’t quite get what I wanted to say there. (Will, stop posting at 7 AM!)
<
p>
As far as BMG’s policy and stance –
<
p>
I’m all for occasional gentle nudges or discussion on the disclosure issue. I posted my real name as a result of BMG’s last debate on this, and my blogging experience has been improved.
<
p>
A gentle nudge doesn’t mean asking all our anonymous posters, “What if you’re not who you say you are.” There are better ways to have a discussion.
<
p>
As far as BMG policy, our existing policy captures it just right. An automatic reminder of that policy delivered to new users might certainly be beneficial (if that’s not happening already).
<
p>
Disclosure is good, and nudging people towards disclosure is good. But using forceful methods (either Armando style, or by challenging anonymous posters arbitrarily) is not appropriate.
<
p>
2. As for Armando:
<
p>
You write: “Third, have the courage of your convictions. If you’ve got something you think everyone needs to hear, it’s surely important enough to put your own name and face behind it.”
<
p>
That works for me and you and many here; we face fairly little downside risk in terms of our jobs.
<
p>
I don’t see why, however, Armando fits into your frame. He didn’t have things that “everyone NEEDS to hear.”
<
p>
Wasn’t he implicitly saying “I have stuff I want to say, I’m not ashamed to say it, I’m being fairly open using my real first name, I assume that nobody will bother to figure out it’s me, but I suppose if my name does get out there, the tail won’t wag the dog here – I’d rather protect the partners and associates I work with 10 hours a day than blog”?
<
p>
I just don’t see that as lack of courage for Armando, but instead simply him “striking a reasonable personal balance.”
I agree with the first point – I rather like the mix we have now, and absolutely there is value to those who choose to remain totally anonymous. So we have no intention of changing our policy and forcing all contributors to blog under their real name. Things are going pretty well here, IMHO, so no need to fix what ain’t broke. We may continue our “gentle nudges,” though!
<
p>
As to Armando, though, I think the lesson is somewhat broader, as I wrote in the main post. To read Armando’s posts, you’d certainly think his view was “you need to hear this, and furthermore, you’re an idiot if you don’t agree with me and act on it.” He felt very strongly that he was right on Roberts and Alito, for example, and that rejecting both was urgently required to save the country, yet no serious opposition to Roberts, and only modest opposition to Alito, ever materialized – after Roberts, Armando famously declared himself a failure. Would he have been more effective under his real name? I think so, though really who can say. And yet he apparently thought that the professional reputations of his law firm and his colleagues were endangered by his blogging – otherwise he wouldn’t have stayed as anonymous as he did, and he wouldn’t have freaked when he was outed. Sorry, Armando, but grown-ups occasionally have to choose. He tried having it both ways, and apparently it has come back to bite him.
A lot of times people will reveal things that they wouldn’t feel comfortable revealing, and often those things can be valuable. It’s all well and good to say only those with the courage of their convictions should have a voice, but then you’re basically limited to journalists and trust-fund babies (and unemployed actors).
<
p>
Regarding Armando, though, he was beyond vociferous–in the comments he often engaged in pointless, stupid flamewars, often with people who were offering reasonable criticism or even sometimes agreement. What I find interesting about his real identity is that he is, like so many other “Kossacks,” middle-aged. I liked to think that people outgrow that kind of behavior, and perhaps you will chalk it up to the anonymity thing. But there are plenty of us who can be anonymous AND civilized.
Nonsense. Look at all the local bloggers listed in the main post. None of those people fall into your description. We all have jobs, we all work for a living, and none of us is a journalist (and least not that I know of). We’re just people who find time to be “activists” in this peculiar way.
<
p>
But I agree with your point about Armando. His manner did him no favors.
Sorry for the hyperbole, and I do respect those who are able to be themselves online. I can also see the attraction in limiting who can participate so you don’t have to deal with all the crazies. But still, I think that exluding all anonymous bloggers would be more loss than gain.
I don’t have a link, but I did see a comment that said he plans to resume blogging by the end of the year, if not sooner. In fact, he still pops up in the dKos comments from time to time.
More than most places, the Boston area loves to know who’s who. The introduction ritual here generally includes rapid-fire résumé waving comments — college (and house), private school, biggest job, yada. Usually in the first seven minutes when you meet a local you know literally everything he or she is proud of, from birth.
<
p>
Yet I’m with David on the need for some credentials for political bloggers. It’s not so much education, but where do you come from intellectually and in background to produce your analyses and judgments? Why should I consider your opinion?
<
p>
Unfortunately, too many anonymous bloggers fail to insert links in posts, add disclaimers or other info to let us know how they come to their conclusions. It’s not like we’re running those isn’t-my-kitty-cute blogs or some wingnut sites where opinion is all and enough.
<
p>
As the main post notes, it’s plain who I am and it’s easy to click to my profile and beyond to my personal sites.
<
p>
I get an occasional crackpot slandering me by email or posting my addresses and trying to inspire other crackpots to flood me with protests. So far, no one has dumped animal carcasses on my lawn and the calls to send me scathing mail and email have generated zero of either.
<
p>
When you’re coming on heavy and making strong judgments, you need to out yourself enough for readers to know if you are credible.
Reputation solves all of this.
<
p>
If an anon blogger develops a reputation of interesting, thought provoking, informative, correctly predictive, or otherwise noteworthy posts, it will come through.
<
p>
A great example on this site is cos. I have no idea who he is, what his background is, or what he really does for a living. I don’t know if he’s finishing up his third year of political science at BU or ran the Walter Mondale campaign. And most importantly, it doesn’t matter. His posts support their own weight. They (tend to be!) are reasonable, well written, and based in logic and analysis. They are supported by their own merits, not by his resume.
<
p>
That’s what works around here. Your resume is garbage. Your ideas, and your ability to present them — regardless of your personal history, demographics, or physical features — is what is important. An anonymous poster can accomplish all of that perhaps more easily than a named poster.
<
p>
P.S. Maybe cos has divulged his identity. I may have even read it and forgotten. Why? On blogs, he’s cos, and that’s all that’s relevant to me.
He’s like “sco” – under a sort-of pseudonym that anyone who has five minutes can easily track down.
<
p>
On the broader point, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. But I do indeed disagree.
and as I tried to explain above, it doesn’t matter if I could figure out who he is or not. Why not? Because his posts have created a sufficient reputation from my perspective.
<
p>
When I read one of his posts, I can consider everything else that he has written, and keep it in that context. Whether or not I could figure out just who he is in meatspace is irrelevant.
we disagree. That’s fine. But regardless of whether you knew who Cos was, I think part of the story is that he himself always knew that he was blogging publicly, under his own name, and fully standing behind what he said. That’s part of why his posts are effective. You’re in that category too – fine comments, in part because you more or less publicly stand behind them.
<
p>
To take it back to Armando: I would wager that if he had been blogging publicly, he wouldn’t have been as much of a jerk as he was (perhaps because he wouldn’t want his clients to know that he was quite that irascible), and he would therefore have been a LOT more effective. Eventually I just stopped reading his posts because they always made me mad and it was too time-consuming to rebut every stupid thing he said. Lots of other people did the same. Ergo, he was less effective than he might have been.
<
p>
In short: blogging publicly is good for the readers, but it’s also good for the writers. That’s my point.
But what about those who blog/comment anonymously AND behave ourselves? There’s more of us than you think.
<
p>
As for Armando…maybe that’s what he’s really like. I don’t think the problem with his clients is knowing he’s “irascible”–heck, that’s probably why they hire him, he’s a friggin’ bulldog–but more likely the fact that he holds left-wing opinions on some issues.
<
p>
Remember the famous New Yorker cartoon of the dog sitting at the computer, telling his friend “..on the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.” Some people who don’t have great resumes but do have something to say appreciate the outlet.
<
p>
The “Romney is a Fraud”, blog is a good example of where anonymity has made all the difference in the world. “Ben” obviously was in a vital position and had access to people in vital positions that, had he been known, would have cut off his sources for great information.
<
p>
My only complaint is we miss the regular posting that was so much of the excitement before. Great archive here for anyone with the interest.
<
p>
<
p>
Last but not least, Ben has a way with words and sarcasm that I found refreshing and right to the crux of the matter.
was a great blog, no question. And it’s one that could only exist anonymously – it depended entirely on dime-dropping.
<
p>
But it also served a very limited purpose. “Ben” never advocated policy positions, or backed candidates for office, or really even discussed issues. His sole purpose – as the name of his blog suggests – was to take down Mitt Romney, mostly through the use of anonymous tips. That’s great, I have no problem with that (actually I’m all for it). But I don’t have the sources to do what he did, nor is that why I got into blogging. I see this blog, and I hope others do too, as more of a “building up” place than a “tearing down” place. Different strokes for different folks.
That’s what the net is for and about. I find it uncomfortable that you felt the need to post Armando’s law firm in your article. I think we need to respect one another’s individual decisions about privacy. Isn’t that a theme that Democrats try to stress on a lot of issues?
<
p>
Those who have issues with Armando and what he was writing were free to disagree with him online and free to ignore him altogether. He presented himself as a lawyer, which he is, but bringing his firm into the open doesn’t help anyone.
<
p>
I write under part of my name. I don’t directly say anywhere who I am other than being a minister. I do this because I work for a church. Churches are non-profits who are required to be non-partisan. This administration is selectively going after liberal churches who voice anti-admin. concerns (in CA) and not going after the right wing churches and ministers who give their membership lists to the Repug. party. I don’t want my activism and my writing, sporadic as it is around the web, to reflect back on them and cause trouble, which is not beyond the realm of possibility these days.
<
p>
If people are lying and spewing bullshit on the blogs, call them on it. If sources of news lie, burn them. That’s fair. If people disagree on issues and ideas, by all means debate. But the right to privacy is a fundamental Democratic principle.
<
p>
That’s where I come down.
That train has left the station. A whole lot more people read the National Review post than will ever read this one, and if anyone now wants to find out who Armando is, they can Google him or go to wikipedia. I see no reason to hamper a discussion of what I consider to be an important issue to maintain someone’s anonymity that no longer exists (and his firm is legitimately part of the discussion – you need to see what kind of firm it is to get a sense of why he was worried about being outed). I certainly never would have outed Armando on my own, but at this point it’s moot.
<
p>
As to the right to privacy, you’ll get no disagreement from me as to its importance. But the problem is to figure out when one has a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” as the lawyers say, and when one doesn’t. I’m afraid there is no such reasonable expectation when one blogs prominently on issues of national importance.
Ernie does not have a reasonable expectation of privavcy here in BlueMassGroup. Noir should he. However, this blog has a track record, and Davids insistance of not naming names contributes to the reputaion it is nourishing and the credibility it will gain.
<
p>
But that is BlueMassGroups decision – Bob, Charley, and David. We are just the fans, and this is the USA. And BlueMassGroup is striving to find the right mix so both popularity and credibility can grow.
Every community is different. If you are just passing by, people are indifferent. Or they write you off as an activist for one cause or candidate or another. If you are a regular member of the community people form their own opinions and you develop a reputation..
I do not need to know who some one is if they are a regular or semi-regular participant.
I haven’t posted on this very much, but I think it’s safe to say that I’m the most pro-anonymity person of the BMG three. I like pseudonyms, obviously; I think they’re fun, informal, and part of internet culture. I like that relative anonymity provides one more way that blogs provide a low “cost of entry” to public discourse. And I do think that ideas should be judged on their merits, and they can come from “AwesomeDem02138” just as well as “Michael Forbes Wilcox” (e.g.).
<
p>
That being said, if blogs are indeed the hub of a “people-powered movement”, then at some point we should feel free to use our own names; to be as fully specific and unique as we all are; and to be public personae in some small way. It makes the forum more interesting, just as knowing the other MA LeftyBloggers makes blogging more interesting — and indeed, probably more influential.
As a conservative, I wouldn’t be blogging here without some measure of anonimity. In my professional world, even though people know I’m conservative and generally know where I stand, I keep my mouth shut rather than risk getting colleagues and clients riled up with political differences. Bad for business. This is not to say I shelve my convictions at work; I don’t. But often they’re just not relavent to what I’m doing and so I keep my opinions to myself.
<
p>
Anonimity also offers a bit of personal protection to us who blog at BMG. Maybe this is more important to the minority voices, like me. Who knows who’s reading here, and who might have an axe to grind. (Not talking about the regulars at BMG who all seem respectful and for whom I have respect.)
<
p>
I know of some blogs which require full disclosure of personal information to the forum owners before being allowed to post. That information remains totally confidential unless the member wishes others to see it. Some do, but many do not. It’s interesting to see those who do decide to disclose … they end up becoming the most widely respected, regardless of their opinions, and become the site’s grey beards. Being public also seems to eliminate, or at least moderate, flamethrowing.
<
p>
I think giving the individual the option of going public is terrific, and would recommend it to BMG if it is technically feasible and not an administrative burden.
<
p>
Option is the operative word.
Choice is key. I’m very comfortable with the current policy we have in place: real identities strongly enouraged, but not required; civility required of all. To the degree technology can help us, we should embrace it. The Soapblox people are working, I trust, on getting the commenting system repaired, and BS’s optional disclosure system sounds like it would be a further improvement. The broader point, however, is effectiveness: knowing who is behind a comment makes it more useful. That is why I always tease Porcupine about revealing themselves: that writer has great ideas, and a brilliant eye for hypocrisy … I think they’d be more effective if public) With respect, I think stomv should think more carefully about his suggestion that ideas stand on their own. To the contrary, ideas are dependent on their source. If a post on net neutrality comes from a paid lobbyist for Verizon, the owner of a non-profit information clearinghouse website, or a high-school student, to choose three sort of random examples, makes a huge difference to what one concludes from it — even if they all say the same thing. In fact, if three such disparate people did say the same thing about net neutrality that in itself would be thought-provoking. All of that is lost with anonymity. As to the Federalist papers, maybe they would have been consigned to the dust heap of history (a lot of other political writing from the 1780s has been) if the identity of the authors had never been revealed.
is any consideration of people who want to be unidentified by gender on the internet.
<
p>
Maybe it is overblown, but both for the ways you can get treated and for personal security issues some of us might prefer to just leave gender out of it.
<
p>
That’s only part of the reason for me. Also, it is business-related, government grant/contract related, etc. I know I could be tracked down, but at least I wouldn’t instantly be identified by someone who might want to withhold a contract from me because they disagree with my politics.
I don’t like the idea of “credentializing”. To me, it’s a form of laziness that is taking over. Instead of digesting, thinking about, and analyzing someone’s words, people just say “ooh, he’s really important, he must be right” and then parrot them everywhere.
<
p>
Also, many people don’t work for themselves. There are a lot of vindictive people in this world, especially in local politics. Why would I post with the risk of having someone trying to get me fired?
<
p>
Finally, I post mostly under a pseudonym, especially when posting about local issues. I may hold positions that others don’t agree with; I don’t want to jeaopordize my friendships with people over this. I’d probably self-censor if people knew who I really was, and that lessens the value of the discourse.
<
p>
I don’t know who anyone is here, nor do I care. I read the words and they help me form my own beliefs, or let me see something from another point of view. And I think that’s great.