Fired? No. And why wouldn’t he have written those things under his real name? He’s not breaking any law in any of his posts. Plnety of 2.0 execs are openly dismissive of industry hype, he’s just another in a long line.

I think the fact that he chose to write anonymously kind of says conclusively that he wouldn’t have written those things under his real name.

On the fired issue, I thought about this a bit more. Instead of “should” he be fired, I changed this to “will” he be fired. We’ll see.

Startups have enough variables to contend with to reach success without loose cannons creating yet more hurdles to overcome.

I’m surprised at how thin your skin is, Mike. I wonder why you feel so threatened by that web site.

“Sometimes he’s intelligent in his arguments, sometimes not so intelligent, and sometimes he resorts to cheap ad hominem attacks. ”

How ironic.. I think the same of you and Nic for that matter of fact !!

But at the end day does it really matter ? Its not about who’s right or who’s wrong.. its rather about what’s right and whats wrong !!

You know who he is, so does Nik, why can’t the rest of us? It could be a good thing for the tech blogosphere to *really* out this person, might make people think again before taking cheap shots.

Admittedly I’m biased, but I do believe he’d still stand behind it if his real name were attached to the blog. Personally I told him to stay anonymous as a name would detract from what he does - which is to dial back the spin a bit.

If you guys really care, I could just ask him.

I agree with /pd, what the Dead 2.0 guy does is no worse than some of the Crunch blogs do regularly.

So is he a hired exec on a paycheck, or does he have equity? Is he a founder? If he’s a hired gun, then maybe he might have reason to be scared.

As for me, I would rather be receiving end of cheapshots than participate in an involuntary outting that could result in loss of job and ruined reputation. *shrug* Maybe that’s just me. I don’t know.

The guy should be allowed to say what he wants, under cover of anonymity or not. Some of you who have posted to this very post have made some extremely caustic, harsh, and what many may deem “unfair” remarks through your own blog posts and podcasts; accept the swallow of your own medicine for awhile, and don’t gripe about it.

Can we please get over this infantile “Anonymous = Coward” idiocy? Anonymity is not an admission of cowardice. In some cases, it’s a way of protecting yourself from the extremes that people can go to over a web site. Or, it’s a way of having many voices speak with the same name.

Anonymity is a long, rich, and frankly, honorable tradition in the publishing and political worlds, and this testoronal attitude of “If you won’t sign your name to it, you’re a coward and your opinion is meaningless” should be properly exposed for the stupidity it is.

Unless of course, people like Dave think the Federalist Papers are invalid.

Hey Mike, I think you need a rebuttal offering and/or clarify the statement ” think this kind of thing is a good check against techcrunch and will keep us honest…I will say though that when companies start to fail we cover that too. My lawyers are pissy about our trademark and want us to send them a letter. I need to contact them to talk when they launch.”

For some reason I am not seeing your comments posted, yet I am seeing some traction within blogoshpere on this

did you pull your comment or is the facts wrongly presented ?

If he doesn’t have the balls to put his name to his posts, his credibility isn’t that high anyway at least with me.

Should he be fired? Let’s turn this around… If it was a developer or manager at the same company would THAT person be fired? If so, then this guy should be fired too. His VP title shouldn’t protect him. For anyone about to go ‘boohoo that’s harsh’… he should have thought about this before starting to blog. I don’t think people should be punished for their blogs in most cases, but if you’re a startup exec sniping at other people in the same basic space you’re kind of setting yourself up. Now, I’d feel differently if he was running, say, a restaurant review blog and being snarky about people in that realm.

Mike,

Outting people who prefer anonymity is unethical.

Outting people who break the law is ethical.

When “attack” blogging becomes illegal then outting is OK because of the legal aspect but…

There’s this really old document in Washington with a few Amendments and it seems to protect speech so anonymous blogging MAY be constitutionally protected… at least for a few more months.

Ther hard thing about protecting secrets is that it requires a strength of character and mental stability.
I feel your pain. Hang in there.

If you do out this guy… can he sue you? IANAL, so I really want to know. I don’t think he can sue you for just saying you know and that he’s a VP at a compny and dishing a bunch of clues but it you publish the name without permission: can you be held liable legally for damage? I’m thinking yes. I’m thinking “Hell, yes… Arrington is loaded.”

I hope Winer publishes it too becuase he’s got millions… millions just from Web Pings for God’s sake… Web 2.0 is INSANE!

In what way is it unethical?

It’s understandable that a coward who hides behind a pseudonym to attack other people would think that, but I don’t see why anyone who uses their real name should protect your anonymity. If you don’t want to get exposed, use your real name, then no one can expose you.

Unlike someone whose livelihood is blogging, there are many of us that cannot afford to have their opinion or commentary tied to their professional persona. Does this mean they should be prohibited from taking part in the community? It’s stimulating to be able to provide your thoughts and engage in a conversation with other techies - without fear that you’re in any way jeopardizing your career or the public’s perception of the organization that employs you. I don’t think that instilling fear in those of us that prefer to post anonymously is good for our industry. Some of these individuals (not the trolls of course) cause us to think critically about our businesses. Unless you want to start a members-only, sworn to secrecy forum that isn’t going to be indexed by google, I think anonymity is important if we want to have balanced discussions.

Whereas I think people should have the courage to stand by what they believe in.

In the end I don’t really care that much. I didn’t even think about trying to find out who this guy is and I won’t disclose who he is. But I do think that he has hurt his startup by attacking and rididculing people in the community, and that’s something worth discussing.

“If you don’t want to get exposed, use your real name, then no one can expose you. “”

Huh Dave — have you ever heard of the witness protection program ?? I think being anon in the web2.0 space is akin to the WPP.. Just like minimicrosoft for starters… !! :)-

and I second the statement “anonymity is important if we want to have balanced discussions” !! :)-

“hurt his startup by attacking and rididculing people in the community, and that’s something worth discussing. ”

Oh Mike really ?? I wonder if the startup is in competitions with maybe a startup that you favour ?? Yeah we know that at times your *dont* favour certain startups , (e.g squidoo), so on the other side of the coin– there must be startup that you favour over others..correct ??

I wonder how the community will ever know the startup –without knowing the body .. Unless you/nic plan to let the cat out of the bag !!

When I write about startups (and everything else) I do it under my own name and bear the consequences. When you write anonymously, and you take cheap shots, you don’t have to bear those consequences. You really don’t see a difference, do you? People need to take responsibility for their actions.

Mr. Winer: “In what way is it unethical?”

If anyone blogs anaoymously or comments anonymously they have made a decision about disclosure. They may have extenuating circumstances that preclude such a disclosure.

The blogger in question in this case has a career to protect. Protecting that professional position is a privilege “he” elects to protect.

You certainly have legal recourse to sue anyone but you wouldn’t have rights to violate the privacy of an anonymous voice in the conversation.

I can see why you’d be frustrated with such a blogger since you are so transparent in your internet persona and pay still penalties for that courageous stance but you should respect the rights of others to think and act differently.

Let the trolls stew in their internal torments and enjoys the fruits of your labors as you settle into the golden years (cha-cha-cha). Perhaps it would surprize you to know that I am actually older than you but unfortunately I still toil as a wage salve for a company that would frown upon my writing this comment… even on my lunch hour. Such is my lot in life. A result of wasting too many years playing with cool technology and never actually building a business like you did. I hope that makes you feel a bit better and a lot less bitter about my “cowardice”.

It there is no right to privacy in the ‘blog-o-schere” then I frankly won’t bother to play at all. Drive dissent from the field… drive any views you don’t like from the field… but please don’t consider anyone to respect your views upon censorship when Google ads link to your words in my browser window. It’s too laughable to contemplate.

Oh well there I go again. Trying to make you appear the fool. When will I ever learn. I must slink away now to my dark little hole and like these festering wounds.

Mike,

People have a right to speak and comment about ideas.
There is no precise legal definition for “cheap shots”
but there is a legal recourse for defamation, slander and other injuries.

I know you write publically but this other blogger has a day job and didn’t “go big” and open… yet. Let him test the audience and see if he can cut it and compete with you. Chances are he’d never make it against your skills… that’s fair, isn’t it? You’re winning with your ideas and he’s testing the waters while keeping his day job.

Try not to bully your competitiors. I know it works to generate more pageviews but it’s going to make it difficult for you to go out in public without people telling you are mean and cruel. I suspect you are neither but you’re just insensitive to pother points of view.

The difference is a matter of judgement:

cheap shots
attacks
mean dna bullying

All in the mind of the reader. Let the audience decide on the basis of merit and not disclosure of personal or business details.

PS> What ARE the errors in Wikipedia for the TechCrunch page, Mike?

If you don’t want to be exposed as a ______ then just stop being one. Simple.

I’ll expose myself when I’m good and ready. I just don’t want to see my kids get hurt… so it might be another few years. If I didn’t have any kids… didn’t have a wife that eschews all politics… I’d just put my face on the cover of every comment and let you call me fat, dumb and stupid to improve our debates. “Anonymous coward” and “world class” troll are obvious attempts to maintain a high level of debate and discourse.

Protect the right to share ideas and forget trying to protect your ego. One is honorable while the other is pathetic. Do I sound righteously indignant or just foolish, again?

Right. Thank God for the anonymous writers who keep the level of discourse higher than it would otherwise be.

The only death threats I’ve received are from anonymous writers.

90% of ad hominem attacks are from anonymous writers.

75% of the stupidity and ignorance comes from anonymous writers.

Be anonymous if you want. My recommendation is to try not to write differently than you otherwise would, and don’t be surprised if the people you attack want your head.

Let’s keep anonymous commenters out of this discussion. While related, an anonymous blogger’s blog serves as identity of sort for the blogger and accountable to a degree through blog readership. This is not the case with anonymous commenters.

Re anonymous blogging, I don’t think it’s fair to characterize all anonymous bloggers as cowards. For example, bloggers living in Iraq would be wise to remain anonymous to avoid getting killed by anyone who doesn’t like what he reads.

Like it or not, identity often gets in the way of communication. Just discovering the sex of the other person in midst of a conversation can change the tone of the communication as I am sure many have experienced through instant chats and online games.

Mike,

Please forgive my desire to argue fine points but…

Actually God isn’t the designer of the rights I’m espousing. It’s that amended legal document I referred to above.

Death threats are definately actionable. I don’t make them while debating ideas. Bad form… we are discussing ideas here right? Or just complaining about being victimized by others? Can we do both?

Ad hominem attacks speak to the skills of the writer as a debater, so, let them pass. They do not discredit the person being abused they are just uncomfortable to take.

Public life IS uncomfortable. I consider my “McD” label to be public life. I’d be outraged if anyone else pretended to be me as my “McD” internet life. I don’t consider anyone to be able to issue death threats on the web and get away with it for long.

Stupity and ignorance also just go with the territory. Just try to enjoy feeling superior to such people.

I want to be anonymous for all the reasons I’ve disclosed.

Anyone that wants to attack me can do so…
I’ll do my best to defend my ideas or just withdraw.

Ideas ARE worth defending. Privacy is a right… even on the internet but the legal issues are vague and civil cases are always an option. Blogging anonymously protects me to a degree from someone with deep pockets and a thin skin. The courts are repeatedly used for such abuses of power.

Disclosure of a person who elects to share ideas anonymously would be actionable, IMHO but IANAL.

As always I value the opportunity to make these issues a conversation if somewhat intense debate.

I look for the opportunity to change minds and this has been a privilege for me and others… on your nickle.

Embrace an open and free discussion and respect that others will always disagree with you. They may even say things that appear to be attacks.

I don’t wish you any harm. I just want these ideas to be discussed and advance publci debate on the right to blog anonymously and not be outted by an offended reader. That’s strikes me as malicious.

Anonymity in itself should not be a Scarlet Letter. Guilt is a result of behavior.

You got death threats. I’ve never made any. Yet, being anonymous… you create a grouping and off we go. Am I defending the right’s of any anonymous writer. No. Those acts are actionable. Deleting my words becuase of my argument is just rude… it happens all the time but this is your bully pulpit. I get one free from Matt.

Reason and reasonable discourse matter in a free society.

(Why do I always feel like the poster boy for trolls when I chat with some people? I’m often just passionate about some fucking idea or principle.)

Do you really think that it’s ok for someone to anonymously verbally attack someone, but it should not be ok for people to say who that person is if they find out?

Look, I’ll admit curiosity, but to out him when he doesn’t want to be outed is disrepectful.

I like his blog, and don’t always agree with him. I can say the same about every blog I read, even this one. Crunch blogs are great too, but for very different reasons. His anonymity gives him the freedom to shoot from the hip. You and I don’t have that freedom because we blog with our real names, but we do have the freedom to say what we want w/o being fired. Not sure he has *that* freedom.

Bloggers often get blogger-centric (as noted above) and we can’t do that. Even if he pisses you off, you still should offer him respect. You owe that to yourself.

Mike,

I think it’s OK for someone to anonymously write. They can and should be held accountable for those words and the police be called if the words involve death threats.

I do not think it’s acceptable to “out” anonymous writers. If you know how it is then privately request they stop doing anything illegal or offensive and take steps to block their access. I can’t comment on some cites because of my words. Let me be clear they we’re not threatening and those comments still exist. The words weren’t deleted… I was just blocked access. That’s fine. You should consider s similar option for anyone IP that sources death threats, etc.

But you confuse the issue and any lawyer would object.

The issue is the right to privacy of the writer. It’s a respected tradition in journalism, literature and even public life. Deep throat and other whistle blowers only stepped forward to topple power in secret. As a journalist, and I consider you to be one, it’s unacceptable to think you’d “out” a competitor or someone that criticized you. It’s just smacks of malice and an abuse of power.

Stay prudent and let the conversation rage on. You’re winning the overall war of minds. You’re doing good work. You’ll have critics. Adapt or ignore as you see fit.

Outing is wrong, for me. You may do as you please but there might be consequences for disclosing sensitive information.

So you think his employer shouldn’t have any right to take issue with this?

Mike,

Dead 2.0’s careless words must have hurt your feeling. Well, if you really think you are gonna feel better doing so, you gotta to what you gotta do but must it be done by you? After all, there is no shortage of fools and you *are* a business man whose business might be affected by the drama which I am sure the media hounds will just love spinning stories out of.

no…If I was trying to slam the guy hard I’d have given his name. I’m trying to start a discussion about the cost to his startup.

Mike,

If you know someone is cheating on their wife and you like the wife and hate the guy: do you give the wife an anonymous tip off? I don’t but the urge is powerful, huh. Maybe she’d cheat on him with you? Hmmm…

Would I document the guys behavior on my blog?

Hell no.

[It's Carl by the way and Jane deserves better. Fred says Jane is sleeping with Dick but I know Dick and he's gay... as if.]

So, call the employer and rat the guy out if you feel OK but being the rat. But I hope can’t prove you did it ’cause… well, he have a claim for damages again…

Sometimes you just can’t hold people to your standards of conduct. But you can send them a note or comment and see what that buys you. Or pray for their immortal soul. Yeah… pray for them.

FWIW, I think folks should recall some previous conversation between skpetic and mikey..

http://www.dead20.com/2006/08/13/give-mikey-a-break/#comment-820

Oh please.. .witness protection program? Bloggers in Iraq? Sorry, but you folks are reaching. There’s no good reason for most people to blog anonymously… The fact is that by blogging anonymously you can say things without suffering the consequences of having said them… so answer me this - why are you saying those things? Are you really blogging from inside the Mafia or a war zone? Or are you simply afraid of hurting your career? If it’s the latter… why do you need to say things that would hurt your career? What value do they add to the community and why should someone have to suffer your attacks and be named in them when you’re not willing to reveal yourselves so the consequences are symmetrical? Oh, that’s right… you’re cowards.

“Try not to bully your competitiors. I know it works to generate more pageviews but it’s going to make it difficult for you to go out in public without people telling you are mean and cruel.”

I’m probably biased, but that’s my take. I’ve read the Crunch empire brings in $60k/mo - is that not sufficient, must all contrarians (with zero advertising, no less) be run over?

At least Arrington is sending a ton of traffic to Dead 2.0 today. Nice!

Anonymity is honorable if used to correct some social injustice. Deep Throat was a good example.

The issue is that the person requesting anonymity should do WHATEVER it takes to protect their identity. Being stupid is not an excuse.

I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t be outed especially considering its apparently easy to figure i tout.

I was so trying to stay out of this…

@Mike: seems like you’re tackling this thing like you’re trying to chair a discussion on some technical protocol or the other. “Look, folks, if we use the katzenjammer method, the bolshevek class will inherit the wind (blabla)!”

this isn’t anything to discuss for most half-way socialized people: you don’t out. even if he takes some horrible way-way-off-base lame shot(s) at you. in fact, especially if it’s some crackpot shot. you know this. you know that man/woman/dog will have made a fool of himself in the court of opinion aw by hisself. there’s isn’t a thing to be done.

and if you try to out a person who’s actually made some sense, turned up the light while dousing the heat, then for sure you’ll be lambasted for the outtage.

the only way to “win” is by addressing the content and not the envelope. focus on what’s actually important.

anyway, you already know this. you know the answer to your own silly question (“Do you really think that it’s ok for someone to anonymously verbally attack someone, but it should not be ok for people to say who that person is if they find out?”).

you can do what you want, mike. everyone is legally entitled to take his bawl and go home. so, do it, if you think an outting is a fair-handed response. i dares you. not me, of course — try McD (he can always come back a while later with a new moniker, me, this is all i have left in life).

see if you think it was worth it.

@Rick: it’s good to see there are still people who can’t see any value in whistleblowers (or protecting them). forget about getting those meddling masked rogues fired, i would just really hate to see satan out of a job.

I agree with rick gregory. Skeptic is not Deep Throat. However, I still don’t think anything that Skeptic has said would hurt his career, since there are plenty of examples of people in his (alleged) position who are as strident if not more so than he is. Maybe if he was an executive at a bank or a power company, sure, but this is the Internet ferchrissakes, they pay PR people to snark these days.

There are lots of reasons to blog anonymously besides being a troll, being afraid for your job, or wanting to slam people. So before all of you cast a wide, wide net about anonymous posting, let me tell you why I do it (and yes, I know I can be “outed” easily enough)…

I blog about health issues that concern my son and I. ADHD, to be specific.

I’m a business owner.

I don’t particularly want my clients to climb into my medicine cabinet, nor do I think I should be transparently revealing to the world who my son is. He’s got prospects for a great future and it’s not up to me to trumpet his ADHD all over the Internet.

With that said, I think our experiences and our mindsets are worth writing about to help others with similar issues.

If I had to use my real name I wouldn’t write anything at all about it.

So you tell me — is writing something of substance a fair enough tradeoff for anonymity?

I read Dead2.0, mostly for the laughs and occasionally for the insights. I don’t need to know who the guy is to take what I want from his blog.

You all need to think outside the techie A list blogger box a little bit….there are some good reasons for anonymity and I think most readers are savvy enough to recognize cheap shots when they read ‘em.

I’ll probably start blogging about politics soon with a real name. Maybe it’ll even be my real name. Will you care?

If I find out who McD is I will publish his identity for all to see.

“… sometimes he resorts to cheap ad hominem attacks.”

Mike,

You mean like calling an accomplished author, who’s name is Nick, a dick ?

Tommy

Why do people get so confused about the !st Amendment and think it applies to every facet of speec? The First Amendent says “Govt shall make no law…” Now, unless I missed something, I don’t think this covers private businesses or the internet. Private businesses are free to set whatever speech rules they want on their employees. Private businesses don’t make laws.

That said, if everyone felt the way Winer does, we likely would have never had the Declaration of Independence or The Constitituion. Nothing wrong with anonymity. I care more about substance. I’m secure and mature enough to separate my emotions and check my ego and simply focus on what is being written. It seems Arrington and others aren’t.

Mike, it’s not for you to decide what his employer should or should not do. Who knows? Maybe his employer is all for it. Not really your concern.

I’m not buying Mike Arrington’s refrain, “I didn’t want to ‘out’ this guy; I just think it’s worth having a discussion about now”. It seems fairly obvious to me that Mike (and Dave Winer) wants to destroy the fellow. Mike and Dave’s feelings were hurt by the Dead 2.0 writer’s commentary, and they simply want to bury him. Real nice, boys. Too bad you can’t take your own medicine.

One other thing I wanted to add: I’m not a Dave Winer hater — fact is, I’m not sure how I feel about Dave. Sometimes I really respect his opinions and the work he’s done; other times he says things that just seem to counter the very things I’ve respected him for saying. He seems inconsistent, so it’s difficult to really know which of Dave’s opinions are truly his own.

So I’m not trying to bash Dave Winer here. I simply think that his role in outing (or urging the outing of) this Dead 2.0 writer is unfair; that’s my opinion and don’t hate me for it.

As for Mike Arrington: I don’t listen to the guy (read his opinions), so I couldn’t tell you whether I respect his opinions or not. I simply never felt inclined to read his blog. And after this Dead 2.0 debacle, I don’t see any reason to begin reading his blog; a person who seems so intent on destroying someone else’s reputation isn’t worth my time to read, however. It doesn’t matter if Mike feels that the Dead 2.0 writer did the same to him — “an eye for an eye” isn’t cool, no matter how you look at it.

“Should he be fired?”

Wouldn’t it be nice if we were all millionaires who could quit our day jobs and blog full time with impunity, as Mike has? He can dish it out, but he can’t take it. He’s never wrong on that pedestal of his so he can’t engage in a dialogue, rather he must bury all contrarians.

I did a little Wiki research (skeptic would be proud) and would like to quote some descriptions of a narcissistic personality disorder: “People who are narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight, real or imagined.” “Though individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism makes it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others” “The interpersonal relationships of patients with NPD are typically impaired due to the individual’s lack of empathy, disregard for others, exploitativeness, sense of entitlement, and constant need for attention.” “It is unusual for people suffering from narcissism to seek treatment for their problems, or even to consider that they might have a problem.”

FYI I am not a mental health professional and therefore not capable of making a psychiatric diagnosis.

that’s really wonderful. thank you.

Turning comments off for a while.