On anonymity

There have been a number of posts recently questioning the practice of anonymous blogging. The growing numbers of these posts have a cumulative affect of nagging. I would say it is akin to the off line question often faced in Jordanian taxis and government offices: where are you from? Of course, the subtext of this obnoxious question is: I want to judge you based on your lineage, not on what you have to offer.

As an anonymous blogger, I would like to take up some of the ideas raised in order to at least put some balance on this issue.

First of all, I believe that ideas should be judged on their merit. In Arabic, we say "khudho il hikmeh min afwah il majanin" (Take wisdom from the mouths of lunatics). Therefore, the criticism by Jihad Khazin referred to by Haitham on the religious policemen evades the real issue. Are religious and social practices in Saudi Arabia compatible with today's mores? Are the issues raised by the mutawa worthy of discussion? To me, it doesn't really make a difference whether the author is Al-Hamedi Al-Anezi or Saul Rosenbloom. The failure to discuss the substance of the thoughts presented and the fixation on the identity of the author is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

Haitham places a lot of emphasis in his argument on the issue of credibility. This is a point that needs to be clear. Bloggers are not news agencies. Rarely do bloggers actually offer information that is not available from other sources. What most bloggers do is comment on information available from other sources, usually with appropriate links. People don't read blogs to get news. They read them to try and understand the various points on view on various issues.

So, there is no issue of credibility, unless a blogger makes an unsubstantiated statement of fact. This is rarely an issue. Haitham questions whether people should trust anonymous blogs for "Questions of politics, religion, social, safety and so on. I think the readers want to know who you are". Why? Can't ideas be judged on their own merit?

Another interesting statement by Haitham is this one:

Imagine that elections arrived to your town, and an anon people were allowed to cast their vote. They claim that they are from your party, your country,maybe your religion and neighborhood. Would you accept their vote? I guess not. So why do we accept an anonymous commenter or blogger words and give them credibility?

Sorry. I myself don't presume to tell anybody what to do or how to think. If you want to trust somebody to tell you what to think, go to a mosque or a church or whatever authority figure you feel you can trust with your wellbeing and happiness. I give my opinion, and I don't presume to try to change public opinion or to lead.

Finally, Haitham says:

Because bloggers that have enough fortitude to put it out there, knowing that their identity is on the line have far more credibility than those that want to remain anonymous. When reader look at a blogger/commenter of a person who is afraid and refuses to reveal who they are, most of the reader will wonder, if these anonymous bloggers/commenter are going to spend their time to affect public opinion and public policy then why not be man/woman enough to identify themselves?

In real life I express the same thoughts that I blog quite freely. However, in real life I have the ability to judge what to say to whoever I am dealing with. In real life, my audience is not anonymous. On the internet, my readers are anonymous, and so am I. If people want to accept what I say, fine. If they don't, that’s fine too. My only ambition is to make people think. They don't need to know who I am to do that.