|
>Anonymity is not on a spectrum Is it not, for the non-criminal user? My HN, Reddit and Twitter accounts are "anonymous" (pseudonymous would be more accurate), and it matters to me to the extent I share thoughts I would not on Facebook or if Googling my name lead straight to it - not that I'm ashamed of them, I try to be decent (tho I slip at times and am more brash than I would IRL), it's just that they hold some personal opinions and matters, kind of like that lady in OP's post (except I wouldn't reuse pseudonyms, especially not openly cross-linked to identified accounts). Obviously, a governmental agency that had any reason to look for me would link them in the blink of an eye, but it is "anonymous" enough for my needs: people who matter to me or people like prospective employers do not know of them and hardly could. Even if they leaked to some dark corners of the Internet like my SSN (screw you, Equifax), that hardly doxes me as far as regular humans are concerned. If someone emailed me with my online usernames, it would creep the fuck out of me, but ultimately be inconsequential, at worse it would threaten to shame me for my opinions. So how's that not on a spectrum of anonymity? OP's post obviously does not say your anonymity when it comes to three letter US agencies is on a spectrum, that is black and white and s-he recognizes it, but rather the link-ability of your online presence(s) to your real life identity. With that Tinder lady at the "IDGAF"-end of it, your paranoid (or criminal) Jane Doe on the other end and me somewhere in between (but much closer to the former). |