ambivalent comment

I started completely anonymously, then about a year and a half ago I came “out” by writing a short article about blogging, using my real name as a byline, and allowing the editors to mention the name of my blog. Since that time, I've continued to post pseudonymously, knowing full well that anyone who wants to spend a minute on Google can find my real name. I think it's better in the long run to blog under the assumption that your readers know your “real” identity or could know it very easily (e.g. via a Google search or two). If you block under this assumption you will be more careful about what you say and less likely to say something that you will regret in your “real” life. Yes, this means you sacrifice the freedom to publish whatever the hell crosses your mind, but in the long run, that's going to be better for you. I think the above is the best plan if you hope to maintain your blog long-term, but even if you just blog for six months, I still think you should do so with the assumption that your identity is known or easily could be. You may never run for public office, but someone may end up digging into your past for some other reason and wouldn't be nice if you didn't have to worry about all those crazy insane things you said on your blog? And remember, even if you delete a blog, it doesn't go away -- the Google cache will save it, as will the Wayback Machine/Internet Archive. In short, the risks of pretending that anonymity is even possible are just too large for me to accept.