Anonymity, Thy Name is… Armando?
The ever-contentuous issue of anonymity and pseudonymity returns to the limelight of the blogosphere as DailyKos’ “Armando” is - in his words - outed by a conservative blog.
Truth be told, I don’t completely understand what the fuss is about; he had, at best, a thin veeneer of pseudonymity. It’s interesting to note, though, that Armando seems to feel having his identity be known damages his creditability and worth - or, rather, the creditability and worth of his posts online. This is contrary to the “conventional wisdom” espoused by would-be somebodies elsewhere, and - I feel - a valuable real-world example of the value of pseudonymity.
If, as the case seems to be, Armando is worried about his online activities affecting his professional life, well, there is certainly no shortage of advice for those who want to avoid that problem. It also supports something I wrote recently:
Yet it’s painfully self-serving to dismiss anonymity and pseudonymity as “irrelevant”, to deny those who would rock the boat - those who would like some degree of privacy - or merely those who would like to promote unpopular ideas - the ability to do so in a meaningful way without personal risk.
Armando definately “rocked the boat” at Daily Kos, and more than a few of the things he said were contentious. That his thin pseudonymity meant he could forego self-censorship did much more to advance dialogue and the exchange of ideas than any illusory “importance” others would have placed on his edited and abridged ideas, had he used his real name.
Pseudonymity and anonymity, I think it’s fairly clear, are good and necessary tools that help advance discourse and conversation. Those who dismiss or attack the pseudonymous are being childish and petty.
Armando, you were a huge jerk much of the time, but you’ll be missed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Armando was a huge jerk, a hypocrite, and a corporate shill, and he WON’T be missed by people who really are progressives.
As for the corporate shill, his list of clients — yes, HIS list, see just below — was almost a conservative parody.
And, it’s FAR MORE than just Wal-Mart. First, Armando is a partner, not just a staff attorney, at McConnell Valdes. So, all the company’s clients are his, in a sense.
And those clients include:
1. Altria (nee Philip Morris)
2. Multiple members of Big Pharma
3. GE Capital
Read more about it on my blog. In fact, to me, this raises the question of whether he was trying to protect his anonymity not for any reasons related to his blogging per se, but to hide it from his corporate clients.
NOTE: I got booted from Kos Friday after two successive diaries of mine commenting on this issue got deleted there. I’ve done several posts on my blog related to this about the cult-like attitude of many Kossacks, which must be at least passively allowed by Markos himself and his right-hand Goebbels, Armando.
To me, at any rate, if he were trying to hide his online activities from his corporate clients, that would be both the easiest to understand, and the most tolerable.
I’m certainly not a fan of Armando’s, and I’m not trying to stick up for him out of any kind of idolatry or respect or affection or anything, but it seems to me that every occupation forces to do things that one may find personally reprehensible in order to get by (or indeed, advance and make partner). Given the years he was on Daily Kos, and the huge number of diaries and comments he posted in that time, I find it much easier to believe his business actions were done for the money, and his online activities were inspired by his personal beliefs. It’s certainly more likely than supposing he is a die-hard big-business, big-pharma conservative, and had some wierd perversion for hanging out at liberal websites.
“…won’t be missed by people who really are progressives.” I disagree. Whatever he did in the real world, and however much his personality online was disagreeable to some, his postings at Daily Kos and his own blog, Swords Crossed, were at least occasionally interesting, and helped generate discussion (and, alas, often argument, Armando being Armando). That, I thought - the receptiveness and willingness to consider and discuss new ideas - was one of the things that set progressives apart from conservatives. Independence of thought has for me long been one of the few redeeming qualities of the disorganized, infighting masses of the Left.
I fail to see how your intimations of what people who “really are progressive” should think is any different from espousing a conservative talking-point, and briefly considered deleting your comments as juvenile right-wing trolling…
..Oh, incidentally, you’ve already lost this argument; Godwin’s Law. Sorry.