400 words to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of having multiple online identities proved to be too few. I took a relatively broad approach to this topic, attempting to identify many points for both sides of the argument. I thought this approach would allow me to cover all the key points and issues surrounding online identity, but I was completely wrong.
After reading many of my peers’ blogs, I found I had only scratched the surface with this topic and how much I had left untouched.
An example of this is the lack of light I shed on anonymous online identities. Davina, however, dedicated much of her blog to this aspect of online identity. She felt adopting an anonymous online identity really had no use and pointed out that ‘there are very few situations where it is useful or even desirable to be anonymous outside of explicitly anti-social or criminal behaviour’. Even though I agreed with a lot of what she highlighted, I did, however, play devil’s advocate in her comments by outlining times where it can be useful to be anonymous, such as the Anonymous activist/hacktivist group.
Not only did I not address all issues surrounding this topic, I also could have backed up some of my points with more hard evidence. This was brought to my attention by the comments I received on the post. Both Arun and Gus felt some of issues I addressed could have been boosted with a specific reference or more visual representation in order for the reader to fully grasp and comprehend the point I was trying to make.
Overall, I felt I demonstrated a good understanding of the topic, but could have gone into greater detail with the points addressed.
Comments on other blogs: