Most of the posters of this site, myself included, use pseudonyms behind which our identities are to various degrees unknown. Our Site Charter protects the anonymity of members. Anonymity in discussions on Politics.ie has been represented as an essential condition for frank and open discussion in a small country like Ireland. When I first came across Politics.ie the variety, inventiveness and wit of poster's names was one of its attractions. Poster's names are often a clue to origin, aspiration and character of a poster in a way that their real names would not be.

The other side of anonymity is not so endearing. An angry article in today's Independent is headed "Is anything sadder than anonymous web cowards?" The writer, Ian Doherty, makes a blistering attack on some of the consequences of interweb anonymity. On the basis of his personal experience he says
"the rage and venom and bile that permeates many message boards is indicative of the sense of power enjoyed by people who give themselves a stupid nickname and know that they don't have to face the consequences of what they write. And while the lies that have appeared about me online were wither irritating or hurtful (not to mention one or two which simply made me want to start breakingsome legs) theywere esentially harmless - invented conversations, inventions of dodgy private practice and so on. Others have not been so lucky.... Sometimes fake entries can be quite amusing _ I was particularly flattered when it was once alleged that I had been having a long term and loving relationship with Derek Mooney - but the number of malicious trolls out there seems to double with each passing month"

O'Doherty's article makes uncomfortable reading. Personally I feel my anonymity is a luxury rather than a right: I value it but don't feel entitlement. We have a site here that I feel has respect for people's rights not to have their good name taken on the basis of rumour or innuendo. I find it strange that O'Doherty forgets that many journalists write anonymously or under various noms de plumes and don't agree that any old signed journalism is better than an excellent blog or post. But the old saying, publish and be damned, is still a reminder of the courage it takes for an author to put his or her name over their own work.

Do posters value their anonymity? Is it a luxury or a necessity ?

Link to Indo Article -
Link

At the early stages of life as an internet poster, anonymity is very important as it can be a very strong shield of protection for them. They might be a bit lost in the new world in which they find themselves, unsure about correct protocol and lacking in the confidence around other, especially more established, posters.

This shield of anonymity can be lowered as time goes by and you get to know other users form and their measure. Eventually, at events like pollynights, the anonymity can go altogether as you relax, confident in the knowledge that you are in safe company.

Overall, ianonymity is a useful thing which should be maintained judiciously.

Hello cactus flower,

that's an interesting one, certainly in light of discussions we've had here in the past and in, shall we say, pressing situations.

I don't feel it's a luxury or a necessity. But I do feel that the decision to reveal whatever I choose of myself and my life - not just my name, rests entirely with me. While I'm not entitled to anonymity as such, I am entitled to privacy and to make the decisions about what personal information of mine comes into the public domain.

Quite a number of people here know my name - far more than there are people whose names I know and that's fine with me. However, I think one of the basic courtesies of civilised chatting on a forum like this is respect and that seems to be what's lacking in the world that Ian O'Doherty describes - hiding behind a pen name and behaving objectionably just because you are anonymous isn't acceptable. Strangely, in a place like this where we all communicate rather decently, it's less of an issue.

Much signed journalism is crap and much unsigned stuff can be quite good. There isn't a hard and fast rule. For example I think WorldbyStorm is a far better writer and more interesting than Ian O'Doherty. I mostly use my name when I write though I don't do it here and I don't use it in court reporting - but that's a security/privacy issue rather than anything else and usually the decision is editorial rather than personal. Otherwise my name goes on everything I do. Then again, I'm neither important nor terribly interesting, so it probably doesn't matter eitherway.

I can see how a prominent journalist, politician or personality might want to get on with posting without their name getting in the way. The advantage of anonymity means that we can all operate without the baggage that attends us in everyday life.

Outing a person is an interweb crime of the highest order. It's an abuse of power and utterly unacceptable.

We never got to choose our names as children now we can choose them on the internet and that's wonderful because it expresses your soul, who you really are inside, or what you really want yourself to be or want yourself to be able to express.

Your pseudonym can elevate you to the height of what your being is - the pinnacle the Zenith of your very spirit in the way Native Americans celebrated their natural energy patterns in their unique perception of the materio-spiritual world. And so we do similarly now with events, places, ideas, things etc. in our unique and different world outlooks.

Some day we should have a carte blanche on the use of new pseudonyms - just pm me yours. Youngdan would you like to turn into Magic Arse hisself? No problem.

The King is alive..

Check out 3 minutes in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNX_4ZwOPys&feature=related

You're a big messer, Audi

I've been following the discussion on this at P.ie and have refrained from getting involved. I'm kinda in the same boat as Ibis at the moment in that the idiocy of the various campaigns around the Lisbon treaty is infuriating me, amongst other issues. To say the thread on P.ie would offer me the opportunity to let off some steam is to understate it considerably.

Over here, I'm inclined to be nice (tis true) and relaxed in how I approach what it is that I wish to say. So I feel confident that I'll be able to comment on this issue and remain well within the charter (not an easy task, considering how I'm tempted to approach this).

I've always written fact and opinion based material under my full name - Seán Ryan. I have taken this approach because I was and am always willing to stand behind what I say. A lot of my writing is very contentious and I don't hold back. For me, it's been the opposite of Mr. O'Doherty's experience. When I'm writing under my own name and am taking full responsibility for what I say, I'm inclined to throw caution to the wind and speak my full mind. When I write as Hermes, it's different. I joined this site having a vague idea of the intentions behind it. I decided to pick a nom de plume to constantly remind myself that I shouldn't and couldn't engage in, or indeed start, a free-for-all. I'm happy with the result of this decision, in that it's allowed me to participate in some very good conversations, where if the rules were even slightly different, this would have been impossible. I know my views on this particular sub-topic are not the norm (if such a thing exists). And that's where I begin to take issue with Mr. O'Doherty. We are not all carbon copies of each other. (Counting to 10 before I continue...) Not everyone logs onto the internet under an assumed name to engage in amorality - some do, but we were well aware of this before Mr. O'Doherty decided to enlighten us.

With regard to taking pot shots at the likes of Mr. O'Doherty etc: I wonder has it occurred to him that not everyone might like him? And that most of these folks (or at least a lot of them) on the likes of P.ie are very capable of stringing a coherent sentence together and rationally discussing complex issues. Indeed should it come to it, most of these posters could easilly be identified and are aware of this, but choose to express themselves anyway - without an insurance policy to cushion any deserved blows aimed at them. (I'll leave this particular portion at that - or else I'm going to be counting to ten all night)

Finally, I'd just like to point out - that if Mr. O'Doherty had penned what he penned on MN it would have been removed imo. And that about sums it up (also imo).

Anonymity is useful. People often have valid reasons for staying behind a pseudonym. What I do offline, it's nothing spectacular but there is a political element to one of my jobs, might make it difficult for me to express political opinions quite as openly as I can here and elsewhere. I wouldn't be fired for the CLR, or posting here, but... there might be a bit of a chill factor. Or maybe not. It's just not a risk I want to take. The only proviso I have is that I never say anything I wouldn't stand over face to face with someone or according to my own principles.

I think Hermes you make a particularly good point about how O'Doherty might be the architect of his own misfortune, at least in part.

WorldbyStorm wrote:

Anonymity is useful. People often have valid reasons for staying behind a pseudonym. What I do offline, it's nothing spectacular but there is a political element to one of my jobs, might make it difficult for me to express political opinions quite as openly as I can here and elsewhere. I wouldn't be fired for the CLR, or posting here, but... there might be a bit of a chill factor. Or maybe not. It's just not a risk I want to take. The only proviso I have is that I never say anything I wouldn't stand over face to face with someone or according to my own principles.

I think Hermes you make a particularly good point about how O'Doherty might be the architect of his own misfortune, at least in part.

My reasoning is roughly similar. What I do isn't political but technical, but some of my clients are political, and having to concern myself with whether they were happy with what I was saying online would have a chilling effect.

That's it, and one doesn't want to sort of push that along. That said I've attended quite a few P.ie nights over the past few years, so... it's not like I'm concealing anything, just not letting it be widely known.

I was a bit worried at first reading this thread because I've said some unflattering things about O'Doherty in my time. But it's not me the little shite is talking about.

Frankly I find it hilarious that he is attacking free speech, which is what these blogs and pseudonyms promote. Maybe he can see now why not everyone's crazy about free speech. I remember him being a bit harsh on poor Joe Duffy too, I suppose free speech is fine as long as he agrees with it.

Pseudonyms are a strange matter. I'm inclined to be a little free with my identity, but I don't like the attitude of some towards pseudonyms. I remember a thread on p.ie where members were encourages to reveal their true identities. That was fine and well, but a minority of those who identified themselves accused everyone else of cowardice. That's the sort of smugness that put me off the idea.

Pseudonyms definitely promote free speech. A well mediated site will avoid the vile clap trap that o doherty is concerned with. Most users are aware when vile claptrap is being spouted and will absent themselves from the sites concerned. Pseudonyms allow politically minded citizens to express their views withpout jeopardizing thier positions in the outside world (at work etc). Should this be necessary? no, but its reality. A word of caution regarding pseudonyms is that on is never sure of the motives of posters, of course regular posters will become familiar with each other, but sporadic visiyors like myself may have a harder time discerning true discussion from grandstanding...

cactus flower wrote:

Do posters value their anonymity? Is it a luxury or a necessity ?

It's an absolute necessity. The internet is trawled by millions of fruitcakes, many of whom wouldn't think twice about physically attacking a poster for his or her opinion were they able to track you down. You definitely don't want your identity known to say, the people who contribute to Stormfront.

Bit rich of Ian Doherty to complain about the opinions of others. Kevin Myers had a rant about the same thing a few weeks ago too. I do enjoy both of them immensely but what comes round goes round boys.

They are a necessary security for anyone who wishes to protect themselves from all sorts of infringements of their rights online. The internet is still very much in an embryonic stage insofar as personal security and the development of the law is concerned. Consequently you cannot compare it to, for instance, attributing your name to a letter in the Irish Times.

Ian O'Doherty just likes to court controversy and will seemingly write anything in the papers or say anything on the television in order to get a headline. I have never seen him write anything under the name Ian O'Doherty on Politics.ie yet he seems to have a strong knowledge and interest in what goes on over there. For that reason I would have my suspicions that he, like most, post there under a pseudonym.

johnfás wrote:

They are a necessary security for anyone who wishes to protect themselves from all sorts of infringements of their rights online. The internet is still very much in an embryonic stage insofar as personal security and the development of the law is concerned. Consequently you cannot compare it to, for instance, attributing your name to a letter in the Irish Times.

Yes indeed. This form of communication we are using is only about a decade in common usage. Letters to the Editor in the Irish Times is a form of communication which is many multiples the age of discussion forums. It will take many more years for more definite safeguards to emerge surrounding this form of communication. Until that day, I shall remain Ard-Taoiseach and you shall remain johnfás!

I remain unsure if any of us exist in real life.

cactus flower wrote:

I remain unsure if any of us exist in real life.

Bah, existentialist agnostic!

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I remain unsure if any of us exist in real life.

Bah, existentialist agnostic!

I suppose that seems real enough

cactus flower wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I remain unsure if any of us exist in real life.

Bah, existentialist agnostic!

I suppose that seems real enough

You suppose, therefore you might.

I need to put my hand in the wound Ard-Taoiseach - blasted materialists eh!

cactus flower wrote:

I need to put my hand in the wound Ard-Taoiseach - blasted materialists eh!

Oh yeah. Absolutely shocking. Slaves to the Incognito Argument they are.

Incognito?

cactus flower wrote:

I remain unsure if any of us exist in real life.

You could devise an existence test. And see if we pass ?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I remain unsure if any of us exist in real life.

You could devise an existence test. And see if we pass ?

Would you be able to take on the data processing, EvotingMachine0197?

cactus flower wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I remain unsure if any of us exist in real life.

You could devise an existence test. And see if we pass ?

Would you be able to take on the data processing, EvotingMachine0197?

I was taught this existence test as a child, and for some reason found it hilariously funny:

"How can I tell if I'm really real?
How can I tell I'm not dreaming?
Just lop off the top of your nearest toe
And wait for the sound of the screaming".