1. Through what they tell us directly ( eg. I live close to a bog)
2. Through what they tell us indirectly ( eg. I have pleasure in looking at trees)
3. Through what others tell us about that person (directly or indirectly)
In real life, however, the media through which that information can come are much greater in number and more diverse. One can see (what a person looks like, how they choose to dress, what they choose to show you ...); hear (how a person sounds, how they phrase their speech, what kinds of words they use ...); use other physical senses (do they wear perfume? smoke cigarettes? cook? does their kitchen always give off the most amazing odours? or smoke?); geographically associate (do we tend to meet in a library? a mall? do we take long walks? do sports? or linger over coffee?); and all this and more in addition to what the person actually chooses to say specifically about themself.
On the Internet, much of this information must necessarily be channelled through the narrow medium of a post or a chat or a website. To a large extent, all we can know of an Internet person is what they choose to post, and the manner in which they post it. They can tell us about themselves, they can share with us their interests and their passions, they can choose to post an audio link or a picture, we can pick up a sense of their personality from the manner of their "speaking" and from what they choose to share: but everything must come through the Internet html.
Especially, the vast majority comes through our printed words.
If it is accepted that all of these impressions are a reflection of identity, and if it is accepted that on the Internet, printed words/links/files are the primary expression of those impressions: is then not the post/webpage a reflection of personal identity?