A pseudonym protection fallacy

There’s various reasons for maintaining a degree of anonymity online by using a pseudonym but there’s also some far fetched claims about the protection it provides.

One Anonymous Bloke at The Standard claims:

Once authors identities were known, they would be attacked physically and by other means. Abusive mail, phone calls, intimidation, and assault. Attacks on their employers and places of business.

Pseudonymity provides a measure of protection against centre-right thugs.

Lanthanide points out:

Given that a good number of the authors are already publicly known, surely if your claim here is correct, they will already have been suffering physical attacks, abusive mail, phone calls, intimidation and assault?

So, r0b, Lynn, Micky, ever had any of the above happen to you, or is OAB just takings things too far, as usual?

I’ve had more personal abuse and attempts at character assassination from OAB and others hiding behind pseudonyms than from people who openly identify themselves.

I think there’s far more of a problem online from anonymous and pseudonymous abuse than there is of people who’s identities are known.

It’s ironic considering OAB’s record of extensive harassment, lying and attempts to discredit people who comment openly under their identity while they hide behind their pseudonym.

A suggestion to OAB or anyone using a pseudonym – respect the privilege of reasonably free speech and conduct yourself as  you would if writing under your own name.

Be aware that at some stage your identity may become known and that your history could be linked to you.

And don’t be a hypocrite claiming you deserve protection while blatantly attacking others.

Leave a comment


  1. SteveRemmington

     /  7th June 2015

    Delete and ban me for bad language Pete but the only comment I could make on OAB after witnessing its behaviour toward you and others is that he or she is nothing more than a waste of oxygen, out of his or depth and just generally a lightweight cunt!

    • I don’t have a problem what sort of language you use as long as it’s descriptive and not abusive. I think you’ve given a fairly moderate appraisal of OAB.

      Claiming everyone to the right are arseholes while acting like OAB and some others do at The Standard (and that behaviour is supported by TS management) is a pox on the Labour left.

      They drive away more support for their political cause than they attract. It’s a problem across the left. And they are blind to it or think it will somehow suddenly start impressing people. Stupidity repeated.

  2. Graham

     /  7th June 2015

    Pete: you should blog about the abusive behaviour of Lyn Prentice and his anonymous trolls on today’s three strikes thread. The way they treated David Garrett was disgusting.

    • Yes, I was going to look at that one. Thanks for reminding me.

    • I’ve had a look through the thread and while it doesn’t look flash comparatively I don’t think it’s all that bad.

      Sure Prentice is a dick, he often calls people morons if he disagrees with them, and he often threatens to ban people (very selectively) if they don’t comply with one of his flexible rules. But I think people can make up their own mind who looks like a moron.

      One Anonymous Bloke is not particularly bad for them, just a fairly normal amount of banal harassment. Again it’s easy for people to see that for what it is.

      Garrett doesn’t do himself any favours by using provocative comments.

      And I’ve seen Garrett behave worse on Kiwiblog a number of times than the the behaviour against him at The Standard. He can be quite obnoxious, on a par with lprent (without the power tripping). He’s been outright abusive towards me (and others) at KB.

      Compared to common blog behaviour (at The Standard or at Kiwiblog) it’s not very bad. I’ll leave Garrett to fight his own battle there. He dishes it out, he should be able to take it.

      Here’s the post and thread: We need to ACT on the innumeracy of MPs

  3. kittycatkin

     /  7th June 2015

    David Garrett has his faults, but he did NOT deserve to be treated that way. The way he was described as someone who’d stolen a dead baby’s identity was revolting; he did no such thing. If he’d intended to do that, he would have done it, The police didn’t charge him. Has any one of us never done anything wrong ? The press members who hounded him into a near breakdown and almost destroyed him obviously haven’t, which is nice to know. What a virtuous lot they must be. I knew him-not well-and he is a man with a huge amount to offer. But as he did a wrong thing three decades before he became an MP…well, we can’t have someone like THAT in Parliament ! The perfect beings in the press made sure that he was well and truly put in his place.

  4. Kittycatkin, Garrett admitted the child abuse. It’s even on his wikipedia page.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: