
Am I dreaming? - things
http://chrishateswriting.com/post/75158854851/am-i-dreaming
======
archgoon
I suspect what this really means is that Facebook doesn't need explicit
identity markers anymore to work out who you are. That's done and trained. Now
they benefit from additional metadata like "I don't want this message to be
sent with my standard identity".

------
jonknee
Zuck said unnamed new apps possibly won't require you to log-in and this is a
giant step forward for identity? Wait until they actually do it and then wait
until they do it with something important.

~~~
moot
My excitement is that Mark, who has been _extremely_ staunch in his belief in
"Facebook identity" (First Name/Last Name/Profile Pic, Online == Offline), is
starting to consider alternatives to that. It remains to be seen what that
will ultimately amount to for Facebook's product/app offerings, but it's a
_huge_ shift in his personal beliefs.

I wrote up some thoughts on Snapchat's mainstreaming of anonymity/ephemerality
a few months ago -- and believe there are huge opportunities out there for
people who will go where Facebook/Google won't:
[http://chrishateswriting.com/post/67378144174/ephemerality-g...](http://chrishateswriting.com/post/67378144174/ephemerality-
goes-mainstream-viva-la-snapchat)

~~~
jonknee
I'm sure he's petrified of Facebook becoming being widely thought of as a for-
profit arm of the US intelligence service. They don't have many more possible
users in the US, Facebook needs foreign users or it will stop growing (which
would be devastating to a company currently valued at 20x _revenue_ ).
Facebook needs anonymity to work or the company's future is very uncertain.

~~~
gojomo
That may be a factor, but an equal or greater concern is the threat of losing
the young: teens through twentysomethings.

A single, merged, adult-centric identity visible to parents/mentors/distant-
acquaintances/professional-colleagues is especially unattractive to this key
demographic.

------
kevando
"All we need now is for Google to wake up and actually innovate with Plus, and
we’ll truly have a party!"

That's a pretty great observation. Google+ isn't BAD, it's just the same as
everything else.

~~~
Zikes
I would argue that the Circles system was fairly innovative when it launched,
but needed polishing and a better UI so as to be less confusing for users.

~~~
moot
Circles was neat, but it solved the wrong problem. I gave a talk about it a
few years ago: [http://youtu.be/e3Zs74IH0mc](http://youtu.be/e3Zs74IH0mc)

~~~
Zikes
Watching now and I agree. I think it was a step in the right direction, but
would have worked better if combined with a multiple-identity system.

~~~
dclara
I agree. Are there any examples of multiple-identity system or "share as"?

~~~
Zikes
The closest thing I can think of is an email client's "send as". Apart from
that I've seen some phone apps and browser extensions that focus on helping
you manage multiple accounts on a given service, like Reddit or Twitter.

~~~
dclara
Thank you very much for your input. Looks like a lot of people have this kind
of needs. Usually I have to create multiple email accounts to have multiple
roles of me. I'll do some research on SnapChat, but why do it like it? That's
for kids.

------
alenlpeacock
Being anonymous on the Internet? Who woulda thunk?

In other words, back to the good old days.

Now if we could just cut the cord between these companies and our identities
permanently.

------
prodigal_erik
tl,dr: Facebook is finally starting to back away from their anti-anonymity
stance. Wish the title had been more informative.

~~~
Antiquarian
Facebook is backing away from anti-anonymity, _unless moot is dreaming_.

------
logfromblammo
We're long past due for a free and open-source tool for managing one's own
identity on the public networks.

When we go out into the world, we dress ourselves in a manner befitting the
way we want the world to perceive us. For a decade, Facebook has been
mandating that we can only wear one hat, ever, and never any masks, and
services like Google+ have followed suit.

While I'm glad that Zuckerberg has finally admitted that one might want to
change hats or put on a mask, I don't think it would be wise to just leave it
all up to him, or any other person that has no vested interest in _your_
online identity. It has to be something no one else can control but you.

~~~
cma
One disadvantage is in such a system, once you publish something, you can't
change your mind and delete it, any more so than you can with email.

~~~
logfromblammo
That is common to all systems that involve publication. It's no more a
disadvantage than saying something before a crowd out in public. You can
disavow saying it all you like, but someone is probably going to remember what
really happened regardless.

At least if you say it while wearing a mask of pseudonymity or anonymity, you
can shed the identity itself and grow another. And if you choose to defame
homosexuals, people could look to see if you were wearing your corporate CEO
hat or your religious zealot hat at the time--or even note that you do, in
fact, consider them to be separate hats--before boycotting any chicken
sandwich restaurants.

People do erect cubicle walls within their own psyche. Hardly anyone has a
monolithic personality that is presented for all possible occasions. Many of
the people who do have engaged in a lifelong pursuit of introspective
remodeling to get there, as with a Buddhist monk who has trained himself to
show equal respect to a homeless drunk as he shows to sober heads of state.
Most everybody else would prefer to keep several different personas on file,
to be used at need, including the persona that we show to _no one_ at all.

The Facebook strategy to date is only serving the universal public persona.
And that's really only suitable when no one on it actually knows anyone else.
The instant any two pepole have an actual personal connection, the invasion of
their privacy begins.

~~~
eropple
_> And if you choose to defame homosexuals, people could look to see if you
were wearing your corporate CEO hat or your religious zealot hat at the time_

I am unclear why you write as if this is a good thing. I don't do business
with people comfortable trumpeting how horrible they are just because they say
"oh I'm only horrible when wearing this hat". I would rather that speech have
consequences (particularly when someone is in a position to harm less-
privileged groups).

~~~
logfromblammo
You're connecting the different parts of that person's life without his
consent. That is functionally equivalent to telling the parents of a closeted
homosexual that he's gay, just because he publicly announced it down at the
Manhole. People sometimes wish to present different facades to different
people. If you allow for closeted gays, you must logically also allow for CEOs
that hold personal opinions contrary to their corporate policy.

There are legitimate reasons why someone would like to compartmentalize
different areas of his life.

A doctor might be expected to wash his hands between every patient, but also
choose to pick his nose before preparing his own dinner. When the superfluous
lab coat comes off, my professional expectations of him as a physician end.

We have done this for centuries, with tokens of office and traditional garb.
Kings have their crowns, Popes their grand miters. Judges don robes, and
sometimes wigs. Cops wear badges.

Facebook does not allow for this. If you add your boss as a friend, he is
connected to your everything. You have to work to separate him from your real
friends. If, on the other hand, he were connected to your "corporate peon"
role, you could switch him on and off at the... drop of a hat. In fact, he
could _give_ you that hat when you get hired, already connected to everyone
else in your office. And if you leave that job, you both burn that hat, and he
gives one just like it to the next guy.

It is a good thing.

~~~
VladRussian2
> If, on the other hand, he were connected to your "corporate peon" role, you
> could switch him on and off at the... drop of a hat. In fact, he could give
> you that hat when you get hired, already connected to everyone else in your
> office. And if you leave that job, you both burn that hat, and he gives one
> just like it to the next guy.

sounds like good old corporate email/network/IM account.

~~~
logfromblammo
...which does not integrate at all into the employee's existing social tools.
Separate accounts. Separate servers. All managed by the company and not the
employee. If you have separate accounts for just work and real life, that's
manageable. What happens if you also need separate accounts for
church/temple/whatever, kids' sports leagues, civic societies, multiple
circles of friends from high school, college, previous jobs, and the like?

It explodes beyond the ability of a human to maintain, and user names and
passwords start getting reused.

I already have three separate e-mail addresses just at work, and that's a pain
to deal with. I have two different personal e-mail accounts, so the recruiter
spam doesn't drown out actual friend communication. I don't necessarily want
Apple or Google or Microsoft connecting all those for their own nefarious
purposes, but nor do I want to be burdened by the weight of my own
requirements.

------
aiiane
I'll believe it when I see it.

------
codecondo
much humble so dream

