This week one could read in the Wall Street Journal that the Chinese government has had second thoughts about a plan to require bloggers to use their real names:

The Chinese government, which sees the online world as a conduit for slander, pornography and antigovernment views, believes the real-name system would force the Internet community to watch their words and actions. But the policy received sharp protests from the technology industry.

Now, the Ministry of Information Industry, the agency responsible for the policy, has abandoned plans for a law requiring all Chinese blog service providers to ask their users for verifiable personal details before they can start blogging….

Analysts say the Chinese government is quickly discovering that compliance by fiat doesn’t work, especially now that it also is increasingly aware of the need to balance politics with the business interests….

The government decided to backtrack on the real-name system after industry players argued that it would be impossible to implement.

Then one could read, in the Washington Post, a column by Tom Grubisch arguing that the big problem with online conversation is that we don’t require people to use their real names:

These days we want “transparency” in all institutions, even private ones. There’s one massive exception — the Internet. It is, we are told, a giant town hall. Indeed, it has millions of people speaking out in millions of online forums. But most of them are wearing the equivalent of paper bags over their heads. We know them only by their Internet “handles” — gotalife, runningwithscissors, stoptheplanet and myriad other inventive names….

If Web sites required posters to use their real names, while giving the shield of pseudonymity when it’s merited, spirited online debate would continue unimpeded. It might even be enhanced by attracting contributors who are turned off today by name calling and worse. Except for the hate-mongers, who wouldn’t want that?

It’s tempting just to leave these two articles in pregnant juxtaposition. But I can’t resist adding a few pontificatory wrinkles.

I got my first taste of online conversation on the Well, a paid service on whose private boards every user’s real name is a click or two away. I found that the availability of those names helped dampen the worst flames and enforce some accountability. So in that sense, I actually share Grubisch’s perspective.

But that was 15 years ago. The open Internet and the cross-linked Web have evolved on a different model. When we started Salon’s Table Talk in 1995 we practically begged participants to use their real names. But unless we were willing to demand credit cards and hire customer-support people to phone users and so on, we couldn’t make them — and besides, we were trying to grow fast, and didn’t want to erect too high a barrier to newcomers.

That’s pretty much what every online community — and every newspaper that opens up discussion boards — faces: Practically speaking, demanding that people use their real names online is nearly impossible today, and if you try, you risk strangling the participation you sought, for both editorial and business reasons. Hey, even the Chinese government can’t seem to figure out how to do it!

Over the past decade, one further reason has arisen for many people’s reluctance to sign their postings: They understand that Google reassembles every breadcrumb that bears their name into a permanent dossier. And they’re reluctant to put all those opinions and bantering jokes into the clickstream for future employers or other busybodies. There’s a lot of talk about the Web 2.0 generation’s willingness to splay every embarrassing detail of their lives onto MySpace and Facebook without fear. But I don’t think our need for privacy is dead; I think it just slumbers until after graduation, and rudely awakens upon entry into the workforce.

Real names are powerful; they add credibility. I’m still amazed at the number of blogs I land upon, following some link, that lack a prominent credit — not because they’re anonymous (if you click around you eventually find the bloggers’ names), but because the authors somehow haven’t thought their monikers matter. Using your name is a way of claiming words and authority. But there needs to be plenty of room on the Net for people who have reasons for preferring pseudonyms.

What about Grubisch’s “hate-mongers”? We’ll just have to keep working on our moderation skills and refining our community-based filters. That’s a lot more promising than the real-name “fiat,” anyway.
[tags]china, identity[/tags]