I was asked, apropos to the Scott Adams thing, if I ever walk the Internets in a guise other than myself and/or bearing a screen name that does not make it clear who I am.
The answer is no, and for two primary reasons. The first is that it’s a hassle to remember a whole bunch of pseudonyms depending on which site I’m at; it’s easier just to be me at all of them. The second reason is that I’m not particularly concerned whether the words I post online are attributed back to me, since my personal opinion on the matter is that it’s better for me to own my words than not. I have had pseudonymous screen names before, waaaaay back in the day, because at the time it was what you did; the one I used most often was “Edwin Booth,” who was a famous 19th century actor and also a distant relative of mine. But for my day-to-day social Web wanderings I can’t think of a site I currently use for which I have a pseudonym.
This is not to say that I think no one should use pseudonyms online; there are reasons some people are more comfortable doing that, and I wouldn’t gainsay those reasons (unless it’s to be a sockpuppet for yourself, in which case you’re still an idiot). But for me, meh. I’d rather be me.
But it’s also the case that generally speaking I don’t do a huge amount of commenting elsewhere on the Web at this point, either. I have here, and then I also blather on Twitter and (to a much lesser extent) Facebook. Between those three I pretty much say what I want to say. Outside of those, the only place I regularly comment is Metafilter (the place where Scott Adams got himself in trouble) and occasionally in the comment threads of friends’ site. But usually when I want to say something, I say it here. That’s what here is for.