Here lies the huge irony in this discussion. Persistent pseudonyms aren’t ways to hide who you are. They provide a way to be who you are. You can finally talk about what you really believe; your real politics, your real problems, your real sexuality, your real family, your real self. Much of the support for “real names” comes from people who don’t want to hear about controversy, but controversy is only a small part of the need for pseudonyms. For most of us, it’s simply the desire to be able to talk openly about the things that matter to every one of us who uses the Internet. The desire to be judged — not by our birth, not by our sex, and not by who we work for — but by what we say.
I leave you with this question. What if I had posted this under my pseudonym? Why should that have made a difference? I would have written the same words, but ironically, I could have added some more personal and perhaps persuasive arguments which I dare not make under this account. Because I was forced to post this under my real name, I had to weaken my arguments; I had to share less of myself. Have you ever met “Kee Hinckley”? Have you met me under my other name? Does it matter? There is nothing real on the Internet; all you know about me is my words. You can look me up on Google, and still all you will know is my words. One real person wrote this post. It could have been submitted under either name. But one of them is not allowed to. Does that really make sense?
Behind every pseudonym is a real person. Deny the pseudonym and you deny the person.
La larga conversación acerca de anonimato y privacidad. Me quedo con el aporte de que los mayores enemigos del anonimato y los pseudónimos quieren evitar, en realidad, que se hable de temas controvertidos. Es una forma de dictadura de las buenas maneras, censura y prohibición en nombre de causas espurias, que causa furor entre las grandes corporaciones de la Red; no sólo Google, también Facebook y Apple.
El artículo completo vale la pena.