The author of the popular devil's advocate Web 2.0 blog, Dead 2.0, has been outed. Well, not completely outed, but a blogger named Nik Cubrilovic figured out who "Skeptic" is and blogged about it at the link below. Cubrilovic wrapped up his outing post with some sage advice for anyone considering attempting to be anonymous online:
Dead 2.0 Outed - or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Internet | New Web Order - Nik Cubrilovic
"Some time ago I decided that there was no point in having a pseudonym (I was forced into that when my hacker handle and real name were linked together for the first time) or in trying to remain anonymous. Now it is just about dealing with who you are and trying to not be a dick while online - welcome to the web, where just like in one of those bad dreams, both you and everyone else is naked."
This is sage advice. Why?
1. You may say things under a pseudonym that you wouldn't say under your own name.
2. If someone cares to figure out who you are, like Nik, they'll probably be able to do it.
3. Once they do, they'll be able to search through EVERYTHING you said online using your pseudonym.
That's when things can get ugly.
Of course, there are times when anonymity servers a purpose. Richard Querin offers some examples followed by a Dead 2.0 criticism:
Renaissance Man: Personal Integrity...hello?
"In the blogosphere, anonymity - falsely achieved or not - serves a useful purpose for select parties (bloggers fearing political persecution and parent bloggers protecting their children's identity, come to mind). But using anonymity to free oneself of the burden of personal integrity is just plain stupid.
How can you stand behind what you write if you're not willing to errr... stand behind it."
Now that "Skeptic" could be outed (he's apparently a
VP at a startup that TechCrunch and CrunchGear have covered), people are weighing in on whether Skeptic's writing is more valuable from a position of anonymity.
Kent Newsome voted "No" in Dead 2.0's poll on whether Skeptic should out himself, and questions what motivated Cubrilovic to do the digging. Is it his association with TechCrunch?
Mark Evans seems to be a "No" as well on Skeptic outing himself.
Michael Arrington calls Skeptic's style, "Anonymous Attack Blogging" which seems way over the top to me. A typical attack may be Skeptic questioning why Arrington didn't ask a group of Web 2.0 company founders how they plan on making money. Seems fair and far from an attack. Reporting on the ridiculousness of funding with no foreseeable business model seems very fair - anonymous or not.
What's your take on anonymous blogging? Can you be both anonymous and popular?
1. Posted by: brian solis on September 21, 2006 6:14 PM:
Skeptic's blog is a lot of fun and refreshing, especially in the face of all of the Web 2.0 hype. I don't understand the notion of "Attack Blogging" nor do I see why Nik felt compelled to first research and then post that he knows Skeptic's identity.
Why should it matter...? The short answer is, it doesn't. This is an exciting time in tech and there should be a balance between the hype, the bs, and the promise. There are plenty of sites out there that provide an alternative look on web2.0 startups. Take a look at techcrush.com.