I have been thinking about what remains of my online presence. I'm not writing about the trails carved out of the digital jungle by my browsing and general internet use. Rather, I am thinking about this blog. Do I keep blogging, or change it to a static website? Maybe I should do away with both ideas, and have no online presence at all.
Regarding blogging
I enjoy writing. I like banging out some words on either a page or a screen, and then refining them. I like the thought that maybe someday there will be someone who reads my words, and finds something that resonates. There's a hopeful romanticism in it. I like practising that process, getting better at it. And it is a growing history of who I was over time.
Regarding a website
There is a minimalist appeal to the idea of changing from this blog to a static website. Putting some information or an opinion up once in a while, and rarely updating the thing. Almost once and done. I like the idea because it would take me one step further away from the quagmire of the internet and all of its distractions. I could always practise my writing offline. So the only real disadvantage to having a static site rather than a blog is that there would be no trace of my evolution.
Regarding the scorched earth option
There are two things which I like about having neither a blog nor a website. First, that I would free up time, concern, and a small amount of expense. Second, I would be limiting the amount of information which could be used against me.
The matter of damage mitigation is big. I have had people use my online information against me. It made me reluctant to share. When I put things out into the digital world I am often holding back, and the full story isn't there. So I'm now wondering - if, in blogging, I am presenting a partial truth, then what is the benefit of blogging at all?