
4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong - jonmwords
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/4chans_chris_poole_facebook_google_are_doing_it_wr.php#.TpzDbGX8do0.hackernews
======
toyg
The problem with the multiple-vs-unique-ID debate is that people tend to
ignore what these systems are really built for: data mining, behavioural
analysis, targeted advertising etc.

Users will agree with moot that separate identities are better and safer, but
this is not how the real FB/Google customers see it; advertisers and
marketeers want to know that user-A is an engineer AND loves cooking AND has a
pet AND goes on 4chan.org/tv, not just one OR the others.

That's why FB/Google try so hard to reconcile all your activities under one
ID: to better represent the unique _intersection of interests_ that will be
resold to marketeers. Any feature they implement to "manage your faceted
identity" will only give you an illusion of separation, and will inevitably
link all your activities anyway, because that's necessary for their business
model.

Note that this is not a rant (I use FB and G+ every day), I just think this
point tends to be overlooked when talking about "social" websites, almost like
it was not polite to point out where these businesses make their money.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
I'm not sure why Google would care to know those things. The most profitable
form of advertising is a direct search. "Bears tickets" is advertising gold.
Joe liking the Bears on Facebook is not on the same level. Google might get
incremental value on having the additional data but I don't think it's worth
the reputation hit.

~~~
scrollbar
There's a whole spectrum of user data with varying value to advertisers.
Google already rocked search big time and now they're on to the rest of the
online advertising budget.

Ad networks (like me!) use demographic, psychographic, and behavioral data to
target most display ad campaigns. I have run campaigns specifically sold as
"market to Nigerian immigrants living in America" or "moms 25-35 interested in
beauty products." And even when not specifically targeting those audiences,
one can often find surprising performance pockets from these audience
intersections- good for my performance and useful info to bubble back up to
the advertiser.

And... guess who's the current biggest display ad platform?

yup: <http://www.google.com/doubleclick/>

~~~
Read_the_Genes
And why should we trust you (or Google etc) with our data? Perhaps you (they)
will exploit our ignorance and manipulate our preferences?

Not everyone in the world can be assured their human rights and exposing
personal information can lead to persecution. Therefore, there is a _risk_
attributed to this data collection, at least for some. Not everyone is willing
or able to take these risks.

While I can agree that this data may be useful for both customer and
advertiser, its potential misuse should not be ignored. And when these
networks deny the use of pseudonyms, they force their users to take
(unnecessary) risks.

~~~
scrollbar
For sure. But parent was wondering why Google cares about our data- so I'm
explaining why that is.

------
jeffool

      We present ourselves differently in different contexts,
      and that's key to our creativity and self-expression.
      "It's not 'who you share with,' it's 'who you share as,'"
      Poole told us. "Identity is prismatic."
    

moot just kinda blew my mind. And it makes total sense. I'd go so far as to
say it's almost painfully obvious once it's pointed out to you. I hope
someone's got it on video and posts it somewhere.

~~~
socratic
Is there some difference between this and what Danah Boyd et al. were saying 8
years ago regarding "Faceted Identity"?

<http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/danah/thesis/>

~~~
jeffool
Only reading the 118 page thesis' abstract? Probably not. Kudos to her for
writing it, and you linking it; I've saved it for the weekend.

But my point wasn't that "it's an original thought that he's had and no one
has ever considered it before!" just "I was ignorant of this exact problem
until it was pointed out to me. Then it became evident."

But, maybe I'm just reading that as a little more antagonistic than intended.

~~~
socratic
No worries. I've actually probably only looked at the pictures. SecureId has
some good ones.

<http://smg.media.mit.edu/projects/SecureId/>

------
joshu
Heh, he spent the evening at my house working on and fretting about this
presentation. While my dog watched:

<http://yfrog.com/hsokxkwj>

~~~
moot
THANKS JOSHUA

~~~
sneak
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

------
ianl
You can find the video at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbPASJiAfu4>

~~~
wahnfrieden
For the record, they got his Twitter handle wrong in the info slide - it's not
@moot69, it's just @moot

~~~
beaumartinez
That's the point of his presentation: your Twitter handle is not you.

------
jroseattle
The most insightful discussion of online identity I've heard to date.

Facebook has painted themselves into a corner, and Google isn't creative
enough with their approach. Twitter is better, but only because they don't
have the same policies and don't try to get in the way.

------
grandalf
Chris came up with a great metaphor to explain online identity.

Most of the people leading major product decisions in this area either have
very common names or are already famous. But for the rest of us, using our
real name online means that anyone who meets us can discover our online
identity with a google search.

When I "meet" someone online (such as reading a comment he/she wrote on HN) I
really don't care what his/her real name is. I don't understand why Google
cares.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Google cares because it allows them to correlate all that juicy information
you give them online with all those things you interact with offline.
Together, these will combine into more targeted advertising (or "direct-to-
individual marketing").

There is a HUGE financial incentive to force people into using their real
names.

~~~
slowpoke
>There is a HUGE financial incentive to force people into using their real
names.

"Financial incentive" is not, or rather, should not be a valid argument, ever.
Especially not for infringing on fundamental principles of personal rights and
liberties.

We (as in, the privacy/anonymity advocates) have always known that
Google/Facebook wants to profit. What we question is why that is any
justification for the shit they are pulling. Has capitalism really clouded
most people's minds this much?

~~~
toyg
Unfortunately, "financial incentives" are the basis for any business. Are you
arguing that Google and Facebook should be run as charities, or by the State?
Or should they simply shut down their social networks and tracking, including
Like buttons etc? I'm not criticizing, i'd like to know the alternatives.

~~~
slowpoke
I'm saying that "financial incentives" is no valid argument to excuse the
stuff that G+ and Facebook do, and so far it is the only. Do we justify all
shady, if not borderline criminal business with "financial incentives"?

Besides, there have been non-intrusive ways to implement Like/+1 Buttons.
heise.de for example did. You might remember what Facebook did - threaten to
sue. With reasons that I cannot describe as anything but bullshit.

~~~
toyg
The problem is that data-mining for advertising purposes seems to be the only
working business model to sustain a general-purpose social network at the
moment. Until we come up with something better, we'll have to pony up our
behavioural data if we want to enjoy this sort of activity.

Heise.de only "fixed" generalized tracking, not the single-sign-on/unique-ID
problem, which is the real root of the issue: as soon as a website, or Disqus,
let you log on with your FB/G+ identity, you're back to square one.

------
jarin
As someone who used to post a lot on forums, I agree that being able to have
multiple pseudonyms is great. On the other hand, I also appreciate the value
of enforcing real names in online discussions.

If you've ever read the comments on news articles on Facebook (MSNBC/Breaking
News/etc.), it's amazing the hateful, racist, bigoted shit people will post
under their REAL NAMES. I can only imagine how bad it would be if people could
choose to post anonymously.

~~~
benbscholz
You may want to visit Mr. Poole's first website, 4chan, which requires
anonymous posting on some areas but allows a limited identity in others
(through tripcodes). The effect of anonymous posting on content quality is
immediately apparent.

~~~
skeptical
I will play the devils advocate here...

I've browsed 4chan every now and then during the last year I will totally
disagree with you.

If anything, the post quality is deceiving, not immediately apparent. I
couldn't understand at first, but then it became obvious. 99% of the posts are
striped from any real content, they are irrelevant single words, offenses,
f*ked up puctures, funny pictures, etc. But then, in 1% of the comments lies
the real value of 4chan.

I've seen very insightful comments in there. Many topics that would be taboos
on pretty much any other place on the internet are discussed there openly and
with innovative views. I'm not sure about the purpose of the huge amount of
useless fluff, but if you want to get the real content you need acknowledge
that crazy people will post tons of stupid things while serious discussions
take place.

If you have a totally new way of looking at a subject, if you expose it to a
place where your identity is valued, you will for sure get it damaged. So
everybody refrains from posting potentially controversial opinions. Going the
opposite direction and totally remove identity ties, will attract trolls, but
you get the real stuff, what people really think, no bullshit, no political
correctness.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
_If you have a totally new way of looking at a subject, if you expose it to a
place where your identity is valued, you will for sure get it damaged. So
everybody refrains from posting potentially controversial opinions._

That's the part that scares me the most. In a world where everything you say
is directly associated with you and indexabke forever in a search engine,
people will have every reason to fear stepping out of mainstream opinions. The
majority will become more beige. The minority will become more extreme. There
will be less in between.

I prefer my world more interesting.

------
troymc
I'm reminded of a quote:

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I
contain multitudes." - Walt Whitman

------
bteitelb
Poole is spot on. I'll add as a corollary, that users also don't want real-
time communication that is a mirror. This is one of the reasons that
videoconferencing has failed repeatedly since 1964. The entire cosmetics and
fashion industries exist to provide avatars for when we must endure the gaze.
And yet, we continue to work on videoconferencing and tele-immersion. Sigh.

~~~
demallien
What on earth makes you think that video conferencing has failed? I might not
use it for business calls, or to organise an evening out with friends, but I
use Skype video every weekend to catch up with my family... Sure, it doesn't
replace every type of telephone call, but it certainly does replace some.

~~~
bteitelb
Your reply illustrates exactly how it has failed. You use it only to catch up
with family...every weekend. These are the people for whom we do not bother
putting on makeup or even our clothes sometimes.

Depending on demographics, per capita voice minutes (though falling) are still
500-1000 per month; and you are spending maybe a 10th of that on video calls
with family. Judged against 50+ years of heavy R&D and promotion of this
communications medium, I'd have to call that failure.

------
mey
They may be doing it wrong from a psychology perspective, but seem to be doing
fine from a business perspective.

~~~
jhickner
This point (anti-point?) is often made, but I'm not sure it actually means
anything. After all, you could have said the same about AOL at the time when
the few forward thinking among us were saying "Hey, there's more to the
internet than this walled-garden stuff."

On paper AOL looked great (at the time), but they'd made a grave conceptual
error in their product design that eventually became apparent to all. Perhaps
we're in the same early stage with regard to identity?

~~~
mey
My point is, they seem to be serving their users to their satisfaction, there
has been several iterations of social sites (Geocities, Live Journal, MySpace,
etc) and Facebook seems to be the best combination of simplicity and features
right now.

I'm not saying there isn't a business model for Poole's ideas, but execution
will not be simple. Which shouldn't phase the HN crowd, as the rewards for
doing it better and still meeting the needs of the users could be a large pay
off.

This general "you're doing it wrong" thing reminds me of Jonathan Blow's
comments on execution and Doom. It's easy to nitpick from afar, much hard to
succeed. I know Poole has a successful community under his belt, but it's a
community that's not exactly easy to generate a living from.

------
artursapek
Identity is prismatic, but the faces of that prism aren't disjointed. They're
all part of the same whole and for this reason I'm not sure his metaphor works
with his point about how we present ourselves differently in different
contexts.

I've always used my real name on everything I do since I got in trouble in
high school for being part of a group prank under a pseudonym. My father told
me that unless I want what I do to be associated with my real name, I just
probably shouldn't do it. I've found those to be good words to live by. And if
you've ever explored 4chan for even a minute you'll see why this is important,
the anonymity there turns those people into, well, freaks. I think "real
names" can be considered a product of evolution, they came about for a good
reason.

~~~
dhugiaskmak
_unless I want what I do to be associated with my real name, I just probably
shouldn't do it_

This sounds an awful lot like "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you
don't have anything to hide" to me.

~~~
bmelton
I interpret it more like "If you wouldn't want your mother to see you do it,
then you probably shouldn't."

For what it's worth, while I absolutely love my civil liberties and freedoms,
I do believe in accountability for one's actions. If I say something
indefensible against a minority group, I believe that I should be ready to
bear the consequences of my racism. I can either defend my actions with an
intelligent argument or I can't. I shouldn't be able to just say "Oh. That was
somebody else."

On the flip side, if I'm arguing for a controversial idea, then I will expect
people to take the argument as insincere if I'm not willing to attach my name
to it.

Anybody can say something anonymously, in the same way that anybody can pirate
music. The people who are purposefully exercising civil disobedience are the
ones I respect, whether or not I agree with their cause. That said, very few
people actually practice civil disobedience. They download music and say 'Damn
the man' wherever they can, but what actual GOOD does that do?

And just before anybody attacks me for trying to take away their right to
privacy, I fully understand and support that it is our right, generally, and
would never knowingly support/elect/fund or petition anyone trying to take
that right away. But for me, personally, I think the bigger statement is
always going to come from someone who is willing to risk their reputation to
make a statement that's unpopular.

~~~
walropodes
> I interpret it more like "If you wouldn't want your mother to see you do it,
> then you probably shouldn't."

That pretty much means the same thing

~~~
artursapek
No, I've openly done things that I knew my mom wouldn't be immediately cool
with, and would probably find out about. It's just about taking calculated
risks.

------
teki
Rings a bell, changing nickname on IRC was essential part of self expression.

------
twakefield
Seems that email is the unifying online id and emphasizes the importance
having an email address at a domain that you own and control so that you don't
lose it when these social networks disappear or violate your privacy to the
point that you need to walk away.

Would it be worthwhile to have a service that managed all of your online
identities? You could register multiple avatars/aliases and the service would
create email addresses for each of them that could be used to sign up for
different networks. Then all of those email notifications, etc. could be
forwarded to one confidential email address at a domain that the user owns and
registers with the service.

------
traveldotto1
Google captures your intent, Facebook captures your social graph. It's not
Google and Facebook does it wrong, they just represent part of us. A service
that tries to generalize the whole embodiment of human interaction where they
only capture a piece of what we do is not going to work. I think it's human
tendency to have multiple identities on the web based on context.

------
abava
I think multiple ID is a working idea. We have used it in safe location
sharing WATN: [http://servletsuite.blogspot.com/2011/10/where-are-they-
now....](http://servletsuite.blogspot.com/2011/10/where-are-they-now.html) And
yes, it is good for users but bad for advertisers

------
bteitelb
Another corollary is that we need better tools for lying. Prismatic identity
management require that you can manage the persona on each facet and lie about
the occluded personas. One of the killer features of the telephone that is
often overlooked is how well it has supported lying.

------
taariqlewis
This is a problem for Linkedin, as well. We have many facted personalities for
work, but we are only allowed one-dimensional presentation. It's terrible, but
most folks don't care or just don't know.

------
yuhong
As I said before, personally, I am not for real name policies, but I am for
fixing the problems with using real names if possible.

------
apollo
So why require Facebook to register on Canvas?

~~~
jeffool
He talks about that in the video (linked elsewhere in this thread, on
YouTube.) It's used to keep out the more casual trolls. But on the site
itself, you're not required to reveal your identity.

------
josh_miller
moot and Scott Heiferman argue about online identity here:
<http://www.atroundtable.com/onlinecommunities>

------
tomasienrbc
I'll never understand why people are so afraid of having their information
sold by Facebook in order to better target ads to them. Do you like seeing
shitty ads that don't matter to you? I don't.

~~~
tomasienrbc
I understand it from the standpoint of privacy for privacy's sake, but beyond
that I don't get it.

------
gnu6
Chris Poole operates the world's most popular child pornography web site.
Let's all listen to what he has to say.

~~~
burgerbrain
That's like saying Comcast is the largest child pornography delivery service
in the US.

~~~
burgerbrain
gnu6:

Try again.

 _"Internet Service Providers have argued against being classified as a
"common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so."_

ISPs are not common carriers, however the extent to which they are protected
websites such as 4chan are also protected.

------
whackberry
Both Facebook and Google are doing it right. They just work for the wrong
interests?

