Hacker News Reader

Comment by webwanderings | Hacker News Reader

Walking on the Internet with your true identity is somewhat similar to wearing your religion on the sleeves and walking outside of your house. I could never understand why people do that .... However, just as we don't and shouldn't live in glass house in the offline world, we shouldn't really be totally non-anonymous on the Internet. It is as simple as that but apparently there are way too many people out there on the Internet who do not understand.

View on HN

I use my real name online as a means of maintaining a professional presence.

Non-professional online existence almost invariably happens under a pseudonym.

Citation needed.

I would not go that far. I do prefer people using their real name, and do want the problems to be fixed if possible, but know that it is often not that easy.

From the URL in your profile, you seem to do both of the mentioned things...

I won't post links here but from the link in your HN profile (http://web-wanderings.blogspot.com/) a Google search and thirty seconds or so of time reveals a Name, Yahoo account and Twitter handle, the lattermost of which (and a personal page linked from your Gravatar) both strongly tied to a particular religion.

Is there all that much to putting up the thin layer that is a pseudonym in the face of that?

(Hint: This is a new account created using an IP that isn't my own with no details given - it wouldn't (alone) be enough to hide me from anyone actively watching from HN's servers, but should stand up to after-the-fact checks...)

I only mention this as you suggest 'not understanding why people would do this', given you seem to do quite just that yourself.

There's a difference between wearing you're religion on your sleeve (i.e. obvious to everyone without any effort) and wearing it on a necklace under your shirt (i.e. obvious only to those people to whom you show it or who make an effort to find it). GP apparently does the latter.

LOL, you made an effort? I'm honored. But you missed the point. Google and Facebook have naturally and unnaturally coerced people into living a certain online lifestyle. I wonder if you know the history of Afghanistan's Taliban rule and their policies towards the Hindu subjects, and how they forced them to wear a cloth of specific colors so they can be distinguished from the Muslims?

I am not making parallels but above is an example of unnatural and forced coercion into applying identities. The other is also unnatural but still a coercive strategy, perhaps just influential in method.

BTW, based on your assessment of my online identity, did you think I was a Hindu or a Buddhist? Because I'm neither.

FYI, the name of the above logical fallacy is argument from ignorance. "I don't know x, so y must be true".

You apparently didn't read my sentence correctly. I am against people living in glass houses on the Internet. If online life is slowly transcending the offline life, than it is reasonable to suggest that "facebook" aspect of the online life is unnatural. You shouldn't be forced or coerced - naturally or unnaturally - into wearing your identities unless you absolutely have to (for government or for security reasons).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com