From the on the Internet, nobody knows your a dog file - this.
I never heard of this person myself. But obviously a lot of people had heard of "her." Here's what's interesting to me about the story:
He explained that he had initially created Amina, his Arab lesbian character, as “a handle” he would use when he wanted to contribute comments to online discussions. His aim, he said was to use the character to present “a perspective that doesn’t often get heard on the Middle East [. . .]"
I do not know what perspective that was, but apparently the only way "she" felt it could be heard was by creation of a fictitious character imbued with authority to argue. I've long fought hard against the demand for authority in my many defenses of anonymity and pseudonymity. Here is one of my impassioned posts on the subject:
Credibility comes with earning it, not you saying what your name is. Hell, what if you lie about it? This is just such bullsh*t from Garance [Franke Ruta]. I don't know what ax she is grinding with this, but it is supremely dumb.
[. . .] Personally, I doubt there is anyone around who can not figure out who I am. But what I do for a living is in no way connected to my blogging. [. . . Pseudonomyity] gives people like me the freedom to express ourselves without jeopardizing our professional lives.
That did not work out all that well for me at the time, but what interests me now is the fact that "anonymity/pseudonymity" (in terms of the characteristics of the writer) was abandoned in this claim in order to make claims of authority. Now the claims of authority were false. But it is interesting that they were felt necessary. That the arguments themselves could not attract attention without claims of authority.
Of course this was always one of the weaknesses of these demands for authority - who was going to do the vetting? Of course the bigger weakness was depriving folks the ability to speak. I wrote this piece a few years ago:
[Daphna] Baram believes that "[t]here's no reason for people in a democracy to fear expressing political opinions." That's very nice. And worldwide hunger should be eradicated and global warming solved. But saying it don't make it so. Unfortunately, the idyllic world Baram imagines does not exist. People do suffer consequences for expressing their political opinions. Ask 12-year-old Graeme Frost. And not just prominent folks. Google searches are now a common feature of employee background checks. Baram seems to live in a bubble on this issue.
[. . .] Baram asks: "Wouldn't it be better if moderators only had to deal with specific and well-substantiated requests for anonymity, while hate speech was naturally moderated by the very obligation to own up to what one says in the public sphere?" The answer is clearly no. Indeed, the idea of asking people to authenticate their identity in order to comment is impractical, ineffectual and rather silly. It has a deleterious effect on free expression and offers no concomitant virtues.
[. . .] In the end, Baram's proposal would shut out the thousands of voices out there that comment anonymously for the same reason I tried to. I think a few harsh words directed at us by some idiots is a small price to pay for allowing these voices to be heard.
The other side of the coin was played out here - the apparent willingness to reveal personal details provided apparently unwarranted "authority" to the writer. One of the great strengths of the Web is, or at least was, the breaking of the tyranny of authority. The now exposed writer may have great insights on the Middle East. I do not know. But the idea that ideas have more value because someone like Tom Friedman or Fareed Zakaria expressed them has always troubled me.