Tuesday, February 05, 2008

.

Anonymity, a brief addendum

Coincidences are interesting. I actually wrote yesterday’s “Anonymity” entry a few days ago, and posted it yesterday. And last night I ran into this blog post, from a week-ish ago, in which a blogger called Shadowfax, in the medical profession, talks about how readily pseudonymous bloggers are sometimes exposed (I’m quoting most, but not all of it here; go there, and give Shadowfax the hits):

I blog anonymously. By which I mean that nowhere on this site do my name or my likeness appear. But I’m not really anonymous. In the early days of the blog, my name appeared on it, and Google’s memory is forever. I have been quoted in the media under my real name, with my blog referenced. Once, an enterprising, and fortunately benign, commenter used the limited info I provide, some very good inductive reasoning and Google to figure out my real identity.

All of which is to say that anonymity is a thin veil, too easily pierced. As was learned, with serious consequences, by superb (and much missed) med bloggers such as Barbados Butterfly, Flea, and Trenchdoc. The list of medblogs to abruptly vanish for this or similar reasons is a very long one — too long to properly credit them all. I only highlight the above ones because they were among my favorites and went down more or less simultaneously.

I post this to remind myself and all the other medbloggers out there that you need to be conscious that what you post is no different from what you write in a medical record — unlikely to come back to haunt you, but as dangerous as a loaded gun should you write the wrong thing and get unlucky. Anonymous or not, there’s no escaping responsibility for what you write.

I have had a couple of aspiring medbloggers ask me about this topic, and my advice is this:
Do not count on your pseudonym to shield your real identity. Know that getting outed is a likely probability, increasingly so the longer you keep up the hobby. Never post anything under cover of anonymity that you would not be comfortable putting your name to, or that you wouldn’t want your boss or a malpractice attorney reading back to you as you sit on the witness stand. Have a plan for how you will handle it should the question ever arise, and consider immunizing yourself against that contingency by informing your employer in advance of any negative press.

Wonderfully well said, Shadowfax. I’ll repeat the key points, for emphasis:

  1. “All of which is to say that anonymity is a thin veil, too easily pierced.”
  2. “Anonymous or not, there’s no escaping responsibility for what you write.”
  3. “Do not count on your pseudonym to shield your real identity.”
  4. “Never post anything under cover of anonymity that you would not be comfortable putting your name to.”

Words to live by, in the online world of ones and zeroes.

2 comments:

Thomas J. Brown said...

Not just in the online world, but in the real world as well. When I was in film school, we had to critique each others' work. We were encouraged to use our real names, but pseudonyms were allowed in the interest of getting "real" critiques.

Unfortunately, this backfired every once in a while, and some anonymous classmate would just say something like, "that was an abortion."

Worse still was if someone anonymously said, "it sucked," leaving me no idea why they thought it sucked, and no way to ask follow-up questions, such as, "why?"

I always stood behind my words and I always wrote an honest review — even if it was scathing. I certainly didn't mind telling people when their work sucked and I would always give them good reasons why I felt what I did. I'm the same way now.

As for the people who didn't disclose their identities, I read their reviews and considered them, but their words didn't have the same gravitas as those with real names behind them.

Barry Leiba said...

When the movie "Risky Business" came out (1983, yow!, that's 25 years ago now), someone wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, complaining about the movie. They fumed about how it was immoral, glorified Tom Cruise's character's defiance of his parents, made light of his destroying their car, having a wild party, hanging out with prostitutes. The letter-writer called out the scene in which Cruise has sex with Rebecca DeMornay's character on the el train, which the letter said was "not only immoral, but probably illegal." It called for us to stop making trash like this.

The letter finished by saying that people with morals have to speak out and stand up for what they believe in.

And then came the signature: "Name withheld by request."