This article brought to light a legal document which can be used by, what I like to call, people who write on the internet (AKA web writers, journalists [technically they are writing in a journal], 'bloggers', webloggers, etc). This legal document is interesting. It includes sections that guide you on actually securing a "Press Pass", so you could like, go in the conference room and interview Andy Reid after the game, and when he says "Time's yours", it's actually yours, which would just tickle my fancy. Since some of these "personal journalists" are reporters, just not working for an established, official press outfit, it makes perfect sense.
The article that introduces the legal document has some disturbing pieces of literature in it though. It has a whole section on "how to blog anonymously". There's some validity in the argument about future or current coworkers/employers finding your journal and finding you insane. That I can see being a problem. However, it also uses family, friends, etc, as an example of people who you wouldn't want to know about your journal. I come from the complete opposite point of view I guess. If you have really dark secrets or crazy stuff going on, wouldn't you feel better just letting everyone know? Hi, I'm Jason and I love Jennifer Connelly.
I can't help it. She's gorgeous. And we have the same initials. And nearly
the same last name. We could get married and she'd just shave a "y" off her name. That's enough incentive, I think, she may just marry me for that reason alone. Although, with some awful luck, we're probably related. Sorry Jennifer, it's probably not going to happen.
Another thing about this. People love to slander people anonymously. Whatever happened to people like John Hancock who would put it all on the line. Not like he signed where he would be when you read his signature, but he put a lot on the line there, signing in 20 point "Independence" font. Some people can't have an opinion unless they are anonymous about it.
To bring philosophy more heavily into it... what is Anonymous? If you have a name that you use consistently that is not necessarily your own real name, is it anonymous? Probably not. You have an identity, and that identity is your "moniker". It doesn't tie to your real life identity, per se, but it's an identity. So while it is anonymous in the fact that you aren't tying your two identities together, you are consistently using an identity for online purposes. If you walk down the street, and see a guy in pink pants, he's the guy in pink pants, to you right now. You may later learn his name, his real identity, but for the meantime he has an identity, one which he may regret later. So, going by this, first names are an identity, so they are not anonymous. However, if you use different names every time, it's anonymous, or your identity becomes the guy who uses different identities, which to me is anonymous since, with the nature of online, you cannot tie any of those two random identities to one person, making them anonymous. You might ask, with this definition, is anyone on the internet anonymous? I'd say there are degrees of it then. Actually, degrees of non-anonymity. You have the least non-anonymous, which is someone who posts their name, physical address, phone number, and anything else you can think of. Then there is the person with one online identity that is a clever moniker or something like that. They are the least non-anonymous. In between that you may have a picture and a moniker, a first name and a picture, or a full name, and any other combination of identifying qualities.
That was a good philosophy break. I pretty much ran out of gas and material for this post :)