Paul Midler wrote yesterday about anonymous bloggers. My take on this? I don't care all that much one way or the other. This might sound strange coming from a lawyer, but I firmly believe that blogs should not have to deal with rules of any kind. I like the free-for-all environment.

I hope that I judge writing based on the content and not on the identity of the blogger. Over the years, I have heard incredibly smart China advice given by people with very limited direct experience with the market over here, and I have also seen some real idiots who have lived here for many years.

So identity is not always so important. Moreover, anonymity can be important for people who have sensitive positions in the private or public sectors. Certainly that is even more crucial for Chinese nationals, for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, we also want to be careful that we are not facilitating the spread of false information. For me, I'm generally linking to another source, so my part at least is transparent. If you are dealing with someone disclosing sensitive information that could be damaging to others, and the person is anonymous, then there must be caution.

Did I ever consider blogging anonymously? Not really. I don't consider my opinions all that radical or contentious, and I'm really just engaging in derivative commentary, so I don't mind if everyone knows who I am. Let's face it, when you primarily write about business, law and economics, the chances of stepping into a sensitive area are rather slim. That's about the only benefit of writing on boring topics.

I also get annoyed sometimes by folks who blog anonymously and then refer to their pen name in the third person. (You know who you are . . .) If that's part of the whole anonymity thing, then count me out. Way too cutesy for me.