Anonymous Usenet posting, another view

Most of the FAQ material concerning anonymous postings to the Usenet news is advice about why and how to do it. Some such links are included at the end. However, the purpose of this page is to present a completely contrary subjective view. Why not post anonymously but with one's true identity.

The major issue is that of credibility. The other readers will probably take you more seriously and it is easier to build a genuine reputation around a true identity. Anonymous postings are ignored more readily than overt ones.
Asking for help and advice on the Usenet? You'll get it more readily if the readers know who is asking.
If you are using an anonymous remailer to hide your identity be aware of the fact that some Usenet news readers routinely killfile material that is posted through those anonymizers. Your readership might be smaller than you think.
Certainly not always, but often anonymity, bad manners and outright abuse unfortunately are highly correlated. If you must post anonymously, at the very least don't hide sniping from behind it. Only say what you would say face to face to a person. In particular, posting anonymous flames is nothing but a special form of cowardice.
Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions. Not the net nor the system. There is no doubt about that. Nevertheless, the question arises if anonymity too readily facilitates such discussions and exchanges of information on the net which can eventually lead to outright criminal or even terrorist actions. As a concrete example, would discussing explosives and bomb-making be as overt on the net if true identities were used? Would a potentially disturbed, impressionable individual find platforms as easily as from behind anonymity? Consequently, there are, or will be, moves in some countries' legislations to make it a crime to even publicize advice how to perform illegal actions, not just the actual performing of such actions.
The charters or established practices of some moderated newsgroups prohibit posting anonymously. The same goes for some mailing lists, and for some local newsgroups. Furthermore, e.g. some universities in their telecommunication statutes forbid anonymous postings and email with their resources.
Even if it is true that the behavior on Usenet tends to be informal, this does not mean that none of the ordinary courtesies of human communication should not apply. Introducing oneself e.g. by one's signature is part of customary good manners.
On the other hand there are a few genuine situations where anonymity is well warranted. Highly sensitive personal areas and discussions may be possible and conductive only under sufficient confidentiality. An extreme example would be the abuse recovery newsgroups. - Some of today's net users are younger and younger. Another stated case might thus be protecting children against net predators.
Other than the above, truly sensitive situations, the greatest probable motivation behind anonymity is an inordinate fear of commitment. Writing with one's own name means an irrevocable exposure. This is particularly true on the Usenet news where the old messages can be stored in repositories for a considerable time. Many users may, at least subconsciously, feel that anonymity gives them a better possibility of an escape if one gets oneself in a really bad mess. It is a kind of reserving oneself an option to cop out and start afresh if the going gets really rough.
"Loading the dice": Anonymity coupled with suitable forgery can, and sometimes is used for opinion support deceit on the Usenet news. The ploy is to use several anonymous identities to create an illusion of a popular accord. Furthermore, the following variation is made possible by anonymity. When one has worn out one anonymous identity with controversial views and/or behavior, one makes a re-entry under another assumed anonymous identity to continue pressing one's views. Both these potential bias tactics are a form of intellectual dishonesty.
One superficially very appealing argument often made on the Usenet newsgroups in favor of anonymity is that only the content matters, not the writer. While there certainly is merit to this argument, it is a naive oversimplification. It is not that easy to consider everything removed from context and background. While writing with one's own name and laying one's reputation openly on the line is no guarantee of quality and correctness, it is even more difficult to assess a potentially transient pseudonym's bona fides. Observing a commitment with a true personal and professional background gives the reader a bit less uncertain benchmark of the potential likelihood of the writer's facts and motivations. That's how reputations are made (and lost). There is so much information and views posted on the Usenet news that it is impossible to asses each and every posting in detail with an illusion of always being able to judge content in such detached manner.

Anonymity gives a false sense of security. In the modern age postings are stored for years, perhaps even for decades on public repositories, such as Google. Even if one prohibits the storing with the "X-No-Archive: yes" also such posting tend to be quoted, ending, at least partly in the repositories. Especially on domestic newsgroups it has been observed that anonymity can be broken by a knowledgeable community if it gets into such a mood and/or if need be. Given this fact, it is prudent to think before choosing one's words and style even when writing anonymously.

Fear of the present or future boss: One of the superficially valid-sounding arguments that has been presented in favor of anonymity is the worry that the potential employers might later check the news repositories for the postings of the applicant. That argument and worry emphasizes an implicit correlation between anonymity and abrasive or abusive behavior on the net. If that indeed is the case, then this goes right back to the credibility issue. It is one more reason for the serious readers not to pay much attention to clandestine posters. So why not let the situation rather work the other way round. Why not let good and responsible postings under your own identity act as your potential recommendation. Anyway, whether one writes anonymously or not, it is rational to give some consideration to what one is going say.

The freedom of speech issue and anonymity have been beaten to death back and forth on the Usenet news. It is a bottomless can of worms best steered clear of. At one extreme there is being able to speak under repression. At the other extreme there is especially the North American obsessing with free speech, sometimes blatantly used as a prop by disturbed posters to justify their raving anonymous Usenet misconduct .

Internet anonymity - Wikipedia
Anonymous Postings in About News-Posting by John Stockton
How can I tell if a post is forged? from The Net Abuse FAQ
Identity sleuthing Mike Easter
Nimettömänä kirjoittaminen Jukka Korpela (in Finnish)
Nimimerkki-FAQ Kai Puolamäki (in Finnish)

Please note: The listing of the anonymous posting facilities below does not constitute a recommendation to use them. Rather the contrary.

Anonymity and privacy on the Internet
André Bacard's Anonymous Remailer F.A.Q.
cotse.com Privacy Service
anonymizer.com Hide IP and Anonymous Web Browsing Software — Anonymizer (Payware)
alt.privacy Privacy issues in cyberspace.
alt.privacy.anon-server Issues surrounding programs that aid anonymity.
alt.security Security issues on computer systems.

[To Timo's FAQ materials index page ]

[ts(ät)uwasa.fi ] [Photo ] [Programs ] [FAQs ] [Research ] [Lectures ] [Acc&Fin links ] [Faculty ] [University ]

[Revalidate] C:\_G\WWW\~TS\HTTP\ANONPOST.HTM