One of the biggest problems in modern society is the lack of respect for privacy and anonymous speech. anonymous speech has been a cornerstone of the advancement of civilization many times through out history including playing a critical role in the formation of the United States as well as the US Constitution
Your belief that a person should be disallowed anonymity simply because they created a popular blog is crazy to me. Further there are a few celebrities today that operate under pseudonyms in their public life and every few people know them by their true legal name so it is factually inaccurate to say it is not "realistic" to have a public life and remain somewhat anonymous.
Anonymity is not some sort of natural right. For most of our existence as a species, we lived in small groups where you quite naturally knew everyone you dealt with. True strangers were rare, and quite rightly regarded with a certain suspicion. Anonymity only became possible when we started living in groups large enough that you might have to deal with people you hadn't met before, because there were just too many people around for you to know all of them. And even in such circumstances, if you were going to enter into some sort of serious agreement, like buying on credit or renting property, you would absolutely have been required to identify yourself. Historically, anonymity of any sort has only sometimes been possible, and anonymity in serious matters has generally not been possible at all. It is therefore not reasonable to speak of a natural right to anonymity.
My position, strictly speaking, is that anonymity is generally permissible. If you want to try to remain anonymous, that is in many cases fine. But it is also quite difficult, particularly in the face of determined investigation, and is therefore rather unrealistic. Unless you really know what you are doing, your attempts will fail as soon as someone really cares about finding out. This makes combining anonymity with any sort of public prominence or celebrity status a particularly bad fit, because plenty of people care about knowing all sorts of details about celebrities, so there is plenty of reason for both amateur snoops and professional investigators to go looking.
I don't find your example of celebrity pseudonyms particularly convincing. These are simply terms of convenience, part of crafting a public image. They are not true attempts to hide anyone's identity. Pull up the wiki page of most any celebrity that goes by a stage name, and you'll find their real or original name.
The examples you give at the end aren't remotely comparable to Scott's situation. Success in the film or music industries is synonymous with fame; it would be absurd to pursue a career in either while expecting to preserve your anonymity. You can't compare these career paths to "blogger who already has a successful career elsewhere, writing pseudonymously in his spare time to a niche, nerdy audience."
If you want to use Wikipedia as the gold standard, check out Wikipedia's own policies regarding privacy of article subjects. E.g.: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." [1]
>>Anonymity is not some sort of natural right. For most of our existence as a species
Good thing I scoped my comment to "modern society" not "our existence as a species" what follows is just a clever straw-man you build to refute an argument I did not make
>>But it is also quite difficult, particularly in the face of determined investigation, and is therefore rather unrealistic.
No argument there, anonymity is difficult, the question at hand is should society have respect for anonymity, and should respectable institution in that society also have respect for a person desire for anonymity
I say yes, you clearly either say no, or do not care if they do.
>>I don't find your example of celebrity pseudonyms particularly convincing.
In this context is very applicable. The NYT routinely uses these celebrities stage names in place of their real identities when writing about them. Why are they afforded this level of anonymity but Scott is not? Why is it OK to use those stage names but it is not OK to refer to Scott Alexander by his chosen "stage name"
> Why are they afforded this level of anonymity but Scott is not?
Elton John can't deprive me of my liberty, hold me against my will, force me to take medication against my will (and sometimes without my knowledge), give me electroconvulsive therapy against my will, etc etc.
Your belief that a person should be disallowed anonymity simply because they created a popular blog is crazy to me. Further there are a few celebrities today that operate under pseudonyms in their public life and every few people know them by their true legal name so it is factually inaccurate to say it is not "realistic" to have a public life and remain somewhat anonymous.