Context is important here, and is the only setting in which the original comments about anonymity make sense. On that basis I would prefer that the context was referenced each time the discussion came up, to keep it distinct from the myriad situations where anonymity is both prudent and helpful.

In that vein, one example nobody has mentioned is the debilitating effect of fame, such that a well-known personality unduly shapes people’s opinions via popular standing. (On that basis, everyone should have a secret alter-ego!)

To sum up, blanket generalisations are unhelpful, regardless of whether they are made by anonymous posters or about them.

You should have been able to publish what you were writing on the UK Libertarian under your own name without shame – the views you were expressing weren’t offensive. But you obviously held back doing it in the open because you felt it might damage another area of your life, in which case I think it was best that you didn’t blog it at all.

You say the libertarian was for your enjoyment. But sometimes there are things we enjoy that for whatever reason we can’t do anymore: by working closely with government, we can’t do political blogging. By becoming Governor of New York, you can’t sleep with prostitutes. It might seem unfair, but it’s just the way things are.

Again, I make the point: I don’t say anything online that I wouldn’t say in person. I think that’s a good rule to live an online life by – and it’s something I have learned myself by making mistakes. When I worked in local government a post from my blog was published in the local paper. I got a kicking over it from my managers, and rightly so. It was inappropriate. I’ve avoided blogging about anything to do with my employers since.

@ Shane – good point, but occasional anonymity for making amusing or astute points is probably a different thing from having a long running blog discussing issues which may or may not have the potential to damage the author’s credibility.

Of course, I am in no place to tell people what they want to do. I would just never advise anyone to blog anonymously, and would never allow it in a system I develop (like the one I am working on now, for example, for further education). It encourages people to behave badly because they think they are safe, and it creates a house of cards which could cause a considerable amount of damage when it falls down. Which it will.

Thanks for the back-up – the Chatham House Rule is a great example. It shows that there is (and always has been) a need to be able to speak freely without having to worry about those views being aligned with your company, organisation or professional reputation.

Again I would like to draw a line between myself and people who blog anonymously about their work, employees or colleagues – I was doing none of these things, it was a blog about ideas, and had no relation whatsoever to my work. The reason it was anonymous is because despite it having no relation to my work most people would still connect them, which may be ‘unfair’ but is just life.

Being dogmatically opposed to anonymity does not take account of the reality that some people might have valuable (or amusing) contributions to make despite not wanting to put their name to it in public.

Is there not some parallel with the Chatham House Rules:

The Chatham House Rule reads as follows:
“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed”.

The world-famous Chatham House Rule may be invoked at meetings to encourage openness and the sharing of information.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/

I had no intention of trying to change anything – if I did I would go into politics, and then would be very open about my views.

You’re right, if I was running a virtual business in second life then that would require openness. But I wasn’t running a virtual business – I wasn’t trying to ‘do’ anything, other than blog and get feedback on the blog – for my own personal enjoyment. I don’t think you can claim the comparison is not valid because I created an alter-ego using a blog rather than a virtual world client.

For example, what if a ‘political’ virtual world was created, maybe even an island in Second Life, where users could create virtual political avatars and go and debate? Second life is just a graphical tool to allow interaction between users.