Robert Whit made an interesting point yesterday --- that someone's personal revelations didn't much matter because he is anonymous here, as most are. So the revelations aren't attached to any real name.

That James character who dropped in and out said he goes from forum to forum pretending to expound various improbable political beliefs, none of it true of him. He can do this bad and nutso thing because he's anonymous, of course.

There is a huge drive on right now by major commercial interests to change America's Internet habits to using real names. Companies want to know who we really are so they can collect more info and sell more to us and also to get us to be more responsible and non-criminal. For instance, Amazon puts up product reviewers' names up like it or not! They have a lot of trouble with people reviewing books, etc. who never actually read them but want to plug a relative's book, or it's the author writing 20 positive reviews, etc. They are trying to stop that.

Facebook of course is famous for trying to get real names. The custom may well change to real names.

The custom of using anonymous netnames dates from the earliest days of the Internet --- so people wouldn't be called to account for what they say, and so other people can't track them down and harm them.

A really bad unmoderated forum I was on for many years -- it was good and moderated in the beginning -- got into a cyberstalking thing as leftists got together to try to purge all the rightwingers on the forum. Boy, they had everything and had my family info, all of it ---- I left at once and never went back. Another person they stalked, they had his business web site and everything, were threatening his livelihood, which was indeed vulnerable, as he was a lobbyist. He left, too. They were still stuck with the rightists they hated most, and they're still there, but some of us are gone, so I guess it worked for them. Cyberstalking would be easier with real names.

I am conflicted about this issue. 50--50. What do others think?