Re-Imagine Online Identity

It has become popular in recent years to talk about “identity” as an aspect of engagement with technology – in virtual environments, in games, in social media, and in our increasingly digital world. But what do we mean by identity, and how do our theories and assumptions about identity affect the kinds of questions we ask about its relationship to technology and learning? Constructing the Self in a Digital World takes up this question explicitly, bringing together authors working from different models of identity but all examining the role of technology in the learning and lives of children and youth.

The Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement that compels the company to obtain consent before making changes to users’ privacy settings.

“Certainly, some products like Google search will support ‘incognito’ mode,” he tells me, outlining the three ways I could use any web product: unidentified, identified or pseudonymous.

“All three modes have different values to the user and different product implications,” says Horowitz. “Not every product will support all three modes. Something like Google Checkout is the highest bar, where financial processes are involved. And there’s a spectrum in between. Some products make sense to support in multiple modes, and it’s sort of a product-by-product decision.”

Ultimately, Horowitz says, the company’s goal is to give you the freedom to be who you want or need to be in any given moment.

Meanwhile, its opposite, Anonymous, became synonymous for many with sheer chaos, whether they were attacking online businesses or careless celebrities. Fights over pseudonyms and identity verification at Google+ (aka “the Nym Wars“) only showed that sorting out online identity had reached an unhappy, polarized stalemate.

Christopher “moot” Poole, founder of message- and mediaboards 4chan and Canvas, might seem like an unlikely voice to advance or complicate this discussion.

I disagree with Chris Poole’s Anti-Google+ and Anti-Mark Zuckerberg Campaign for Freedom of Identity in these Prestigious Websites.
Because this Freedom of Identity will become a Tool for the illegal, trouble makers and or divided Identity sick people which will take advantage of this Freedom of Identity option and create a chaos and uncertainty between the subscribers and also will undervalue the Prestige and Safety of these Great Social Internet Websites….As for Twitter, I think is deferent because is only for Twitting and you have the option either to use your real name or any name you like and or reflecting your likes…..Perhaps, is a heaven for the people advocating or like Freedom of Identity…
In my opinion, this Campaign or any other similar one….instead of focusing to change something basically right on these Social internet Providers, to try and make them better, by stop using outdated methods and be more humane especially Facebook which is using in this 21st Century unethical practices by disabling Precious Personal accounts with out any valid reasons, at the time technology exist to prevent users from certain human superficial minor actions, instead of depriving these people from their Undeniable Right To Communicate With Their People In Their Life…. and also stop mockery by denying people access to their Personal Account by giving them the run around about Personal Identification make them send copies of their passport and or any other official Government Identification and then place them in a queue for their approval indefinitely…this is absurd…..!!!!!!!!!

Modesto Glykis
Quebec Canada

At the Web 2.0 conference this week, Poole gave a compelling talk that mapped this complexity, and which I hope will help reframe our discussion of identity.

Defending the right to use pseudonyms

Another important point about Twitter’s approach to these kinds of matters, as I’ve pointed out before, is that the company is prepared to defend the speech of its users even though it doesn’t know who they are — since Twitter, unlike both Facebook and Google+, doesn’t have a “real names” policy. As 4chan founder Christopher “Moot” Poole noted in his presentation at Web 2.0 (which was very similar to a speech he made at a recent TED conference), the insistence by Facebook and Google that users have only one “real” name may be designed to prevent abusive behavior, but it also winds up excluding a lot of potentially beneficial activity as well.

In some cases, that activity comes from people like the dissidents in Egypt and Iran and Libya, whose desire to use social networks to further their cause was made even more dangerous by Facebook’s blocking of pseudonyms, as Jillian York of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Global Voices has pointed out. It’s good to see that Twitter remains committed not just to freedom of speech and fighting for its users, but to a more flexible view of online identity as well.

During the same time I’ll cover a separate but not unrelated phenomenon: the rise of Anonymous. I’ll be writing a concise history of the lulzy collective, and will explain their social structure and the patterns of their values. I’ll document their exploits and raids as they arise, but I will never seek to unmask any Anons.

The point of Anonymous isn’t whether or not you know who they are, but that who they are individually doesn’t matter. I’ll be exploring how that works, and how, counterintuitively, this kind of anonymity coupled with an institutional sense of humor have made them players on the global stage. I’ll be visiting irc channels and Scientology raids, political protests and 4chan. I’ll be interviewing anons, those who study them, and those they come into conflict with.

If you want to be the host of a social network, you’ve got to create a social space. Creating a social space means making people comfortable. That’s hard, because people don’t fit in any set of little boxes you want to create – especially when it comes to names. But that’s table stakes for social – people are complicated; deal with it. Facebook has an advantage here; despite its own idiotic real-names policy and its continual assaults on privacy, the company has real (i.e. human) sociability in its DNA – it was created by college geeks who wanted to get dates; Google+ wasn’t, and it shows.

If Google’s intention in moving into social networking is to sell ads, Google+’s common names policy gives them a lock on the North American suburban middle-aged conservative white male demographic. w00t.

The Google+ common name policy is insane. It creates an antisocial space in what is supposed to be a social network. It is at odds with basic human social behavior; its implementation is NECESSARILY arbitrary and infuriating, and it is actively damaging the Google+ brand and indeed the broader Google brand.

I talked with Google VP +Vic Gundotra tonight (disclaimer, he used to be my boss at Microsoft). He is reading everything we have written about names, and such. Both pro and con.

He says he is making some tough choices and that he will be judged over time how those choices turn out.

He says that he is trying to make sure a positive tone gets set here. Like when a restaurant doesn't allow people who aren't wearing shirts to enter.

He says it isn't about real names. He says he isn't using his legal name here. He says, instead, it is about having common names and removing people who spell their names in weird ways, like using upside-down characters, or who are using obviously fake names, like "god" or worse.

As Google rolls out its Google+ social network, it is struggling with the same questions about identity that have caused problems for Facebook in the past: namely, how much should it force people to use their “real” names? The web giant has been disabling user accounts on Google+ for a variety of reasons over the past few weeks, but it has caused an outcry from many who feel it is being too strict in some cases and not enough in others. The big issue at the root of this battle, as we have pointed out before, is that in many cases anonymity (and pseudonymity) has real value. Are we losing that as a result of Google and Facebook’s real-name obsession?

Those who have seen their accounts suspended in the recent crackdown by Google+ include some prominent members of the hacker community, including one programmer who goes by the single name “Skud,” as well as one well-known iPhone developer who’s usual moniker is “MuscleNerd.” According to some reports, certain users have had their accounts restored despite the use of obvious pseudonyms, including Limor Fried — also known as Lady Ada of Adafruit Industries, who was recently profiled in Wired magazine, according to ZDNet writer Violet Blue (also a pseudonym Note: Violet Blue is not a pseudonym).

"We were on the right track at one point," Poole said. In the early days of the Web, its creators used their real names because they were the only people online. As the namespace got more crowded, people started using handles.

AOL Instant Messenger brought screen names to the mainstream. Poole said he agonized over his AOL handle, because he knew it would be a representation of him. That insight persists today at hacker conventions, where the real Web experts hang out. People there introduce themselves with their handles, because that's how they have chosen to identify.

"Twitter does the best job of this" of today's major social networks, Poole said. The platform itself uses handles and allows made-up answers in the real name field. Furthermore, "most of the apps allow multiple accounts. Facebook would never allow this, right?" He says Google Plus is the worst; you don't even get a vanity URL to distinguish yourself, and we all know how Google Plus handles pseudonyms: they delete the accounts.

TED Talks The founder of 4chan, a controversial, uncensored online imageboard, describes its subculture, some of the Internet "memes" it has launched, and the incident in which its users managed a very public, precision hack of a mainstream media website. The talk raises questions about the power -- and price -- of anonymity.

Max Hodges -

Had a talk with a friend about this who raised some very good points:

It makes sense to require real identity in a social network because the primary purpose of a social network is to connect communities of real people, not alter egos.

Youtube is not about social networking, it is about publishing, and there are valid benefits to not always providing real identity in publishing.

I believe you can also publish completely anonymously on Blogspot, another Google property. So it's a case of selecting the right level of identity restriction for the medium. At one end of the spectrum you have blog publishing, where the case can be made that complete anonymity will sometimes be very important, and at the other end of the spectrum you have a social network, where real identity is almost a foundational necessity.

The personal safety thing is a straw man argument in the case of G+. Profiles can be locked down to the point where all that is visible is a name and a picture, and the picture doesn't need to be identifying in any way.

"Anonymity is authenticity," said Poole. "It allows you to share in an unvarnished, unfiltered, raw and real way. We believe in content over creator."

Of course, when we speak of 4chan, we're talking about a collection of memes and creations that few bloggers or publishers would want to grace their comments section.

Poole argued that identity can stifle content creators (whether commenters or otherwise) because of what's at stake.

"The cost of failure is really high when you're contributing as yourself," said Poole. "To fail in an environment where you're contributing with your real name is costly."

Where did my authenticity come from? I knew that REAL change comes from people putting their necks on the line. I couldn’t remember a time when an anonymous person really enacted change in, well, anything. It’s why I sign my name to everything, even stuff that could get me fired. Hell, I live in an “at will” state. THIS post could get me fired! My boss could wake up tomorrow and decide he doesn’t like the shirt I’m wearing and fire me. People have been fired in Silicon Valley for less you know.

Look at all the images from Egypt (and I hope you don’t think I’m comparing myself to those heroes who sacrificed their lives there) but they put their necks on the line and they signed their name to the ultimate sacrifice. They were NOT cowards. THEY LOVE FACEBOOK AND THE VOICE IT GIVES THEM!

I get where Facebook’s coming from: They’ve long branded themselves as a “real network for real people.” But they’re out of touch with reality: That’s simply not how most people–in particular, activists–use Facebook. Using one’s real name is good, and I would encourage it whenever possible, but the truth remains that it’s not always a feasible choice. As Morozov has noted before, these tools can be great for activism, but they can also be used by governments to track down “troublemakers.” Facebook has before (Fouad Mourtada comes to mind) and will again been used in this manner.