RATIONALIZATIONS, PART XLVI - THIS TIME, IT'S PERSONAL: In my absence, Steven Den Beste posted a couple of attacks on pseudonymous blogging.
Obviously, I'm a self-interested party to the discussion. In my heart, I agree with much of what Den Beste said; you should not be afraid to own up to your opinions, and an observer is certainly entitled to give more credence to the blogger using an (alleged) real name, rather than the name of a superhero from a somewhat-dated but still classic comic series. I agree with Glenn Reynolds: "If you want to blog anonymously, fine. That's your privilege. Responding to your anonymity differently than they would respond to your True Name is other people's privilege. You pays your money, and you takes your choice."
I do think that Den Beste is still too harsh on the phenomenon. Would I lose my job if I used my real name on the blog? Probably not. But I felt that I could be freer with my opinions if I didn't, and blogging is meant to enable people to freely express and elucidate their opinions. (At least that's the way I see it.) There are some bloggers whose jobs may truly prevent them from using their names, and the blogosphere would be much poorer if the option of pesudonymnous blogging was not viable. See, for example, "Mindles H. Dreck," "Robert Musil" and "Max Power," all of whom blog pseudonymously for what I believe are work-related reasons.
I would not be presumptuous enough to compare my far-too-irregular posts with those of the aforementioned bloggers, but pseudonymous blogging allows quality contributions to the debate which would otherwise be blocked.
I'll agree that blogging in your own name is the ideal. But pseudonymous blogging should be actively encouraged as a second-best solution. Whatever increases contribution to the marketplace of ideas is good.