

Identity and the web: what Moot overlooked - neoveller
http://michaelsiedlecki.com/post/11883308882/identity-and-the-web-lessons-from-social-evolution-and

======
daeken
This is really quite interesting, but only from a social sciences perspective.
Here's where social sciences and real socialization differ: the plural of
anecdote is data in the real world. Here's a great example: "He asserts that
being restricted to a real name (G+ no longer does this) rather than anonymity
or a pseudonym is incorrect, because it restricts what we do and share. Is he
wrong? Yes, absolutely."

How many gay teens are posting on LGBT support and community sites using
pseudonyms because they don't want to publicly out themselves? How many people
are posting about breaking DRM anonymously or under pseudonyms to get around
draconian laws? These directly fly in the face of the assertion that requiring
your discussions and actions to be tied to your real name doesn't impact what
you say or do. There's value in real-life identities, but that does not in
_any_ way diminish the value of anonymity and pseudonymity.

~~~
neoveller
For that case, I agree with you. Where I refute Moot is where he calls the
model of reality-reflected identity on Facebook incorrect, which comes off as
essentialist. Imagine if Facebook at the start tells you to choose any name of
your liking. On a social network, how effective would the content that you'd
rather post under a pseudonym be? The idea is that without Facebook, the
share-ability of such content would be diminished. So my argument, admittedly
unclear in the post, is that pseudonymity and anonymity actually derive their
audience from the effects of rigidly reflected identities--but if you throw
out the strictness that Facebook imposes entirely, on Facebook in particular,
your audience size dries up considerably. People feel comfortable SHARING from
a point of forced identity, but their will to EXPRESS themselves is most
manifest in anonymity and pseudonymity. Expression without an audience is
almost meaningless. It's a foundational issue.

~~~
sophacles
Reddit seems to be doing pretty well... and they grow every day. "Sure" I hear
you say, "they are a pittance compared to facebook", but really, what out
there isn't. And Reddit, unlike Facebook for most of it's existence, has had
serious competition. (I don't consider MySpace to be FB competition, since
really the migration to FB began pretty much as soon as FB opened up to full
public consumption).

Just a data point in the other direction.

~~~
neoveller
I mention Reddit and in the post. I remark that it has to do with
autobiographical memory, which is a very postmodern force. But it would have a
hard time gaining a userbase if something like Facebook and Myspace had never
existed. The latter bring the userbase to the Internet in the first place,
where Reddit is a secondary outcome that could not have possibly gained its
userbase without the effects of a social network (aka people posting reddit
links on Facebook).

~~~
ShirtlessRod
The web existed prior to Facebook. You seem to be arguing that Facebook's very
existence is the reason that other sites on the web can even exist, which
seems to fly in the face of the history of the web.

~~~
neoveller
I am indeed arguing that Facebook's very existence and the effect it had,
insofar as it greased the wheel of Internet use, is a huge part of why Reddit
can exist at the scale it does. Reddit is a better-organized web forum, which
are not new, and maybe by its own design merit does it succeed. This, I do not
argue with. But I do not think it could exist at its current or anywhere-near-
comparable scale and level of success without the social network effect.

~~~
freshhawk
Unfortunately your theory is silly and doesn't line up with the demographic
studies that have been done.

No doubt you could find some interesting examples or some specific subgroups
(my guess: the farmville playing middle aged mother on facebook with little
technical aptitude, which is not an insignificant demographic) that have been
pulled onto the net by facebook.

The numbers just don't show the kind of massive effect that you seem to be
promoting here. It's hard to overestimate facebook's effect, it's a giant. But
by saying that it's pulling up the entire rest of the internet you actually
managed to do it.

What on earth is this theory based on?

------
naner
Jesus man, I'm very interested in this topic yet I still had a terrible time
working through that brain dump. Superfluous acronyms, overly verbose,
excerpts from (egads!) your undergrad papers! What the hell, man. Are you
trying to appear smart for your professor or are you trying to persuade nerds
with ADD? It can't be both.

~~~
neoveller
Sorry, naner. When I try to be precise about things and not essentialize, it
does require some amount of padding with jargon (pertaining to specificity)
which would otherwise be taken as bullshit-like if not read by the fielded
eye. What I try to do is stay away from generalizing and making indefensible
claims. Next time, I'll stick with graphs, which is how I formulate my ideas
and relate different social forces in the first place. To be dry: I wanted to
be as accurate as possible, but it clouded all meaning.

------
droithomme
Gosh that was a longwinded technical article.

All this talk about real identity on the web is a cover for the only real
issue. Corporations can track, market to, and monetize what they learn about
you more effectively with real id policies for internet use. Governments can
track, monitor and control you more effectively with real id policies for
internet use. The end.

------
rwolf
I had trouble following the train of thought in this article; it may be too
"stream of consciousness" for this particular audience. While this may be a
problem between my keyboard and chair, I do not generally find HN articles
hard to follow.

------
neoveller
After reading and responding to the comments, I want to add an overall, more
clear message:

The argument is that without rigid identity on the web, anonymity and pen
names could not really take off and receive audience. Many individuals' first
encounter with the Internet and any web communities is with Facebook, and this
is because these people would not feel comfortable starting out on a place
like Reddit for 4chan. For this reason, rigid identity is a necessary
foundation for the usefulness of pen names and anonymity. Moot's argument that
pen names are the way to go is flawed insofar as it undermines the "necessary
evil" of rigid identity, which is a natural, socially evolved stepping stone
for anonymity's value.

Without people going online and possessing monuments to themselves (facebook
profiles) in a way they feel comfortable and secure in, anything posted online
(including content under pen names) is in aggregate less valuable. Rigid
identity is a necessary characteristic of social media content which can
result in inexperienced web users taking the plunge to explore the rest of the
less-rigid web.

~~~
adbge
Anonymous communities existed before rigid identity on the web. Those
anonymous communities clearly provided some kind of value to their members
and, thusly, must be considered useful.

How, then, can you argue that rigid identity is a necessary foundation for the
usefulness of pen names and anonymity?

Further, I find your claim that men didn't have an identity prior to the
advent of leisure time, frankly, extraordinary and, as such, the claim
requires extraordinary evidence. Can you provide such evidence? Hell, even the
argument that nomads don't engage in leisure time seems dubious. _Wild
animals_ have leisure time.

~~~
neoveller
Something on the web has more value when it is viewed by more individuals than
otherwise, correct? Early anonymous communities did provide some kind of value
to their members, but they comparatively provide more value today when more
individuals are present.

The problem when talking about social science is that everything is
relational/relative. Rigid identity is necessary as a foundation for the
MASSIVE (modern-day scale) usefulness of pen names and anonymity. It is not
necessary for the smaller audience, but for the larger one which is online and
present which we take for granted, it is necessary. Wild animals are often
always looking for food. The claim of no-identity-before-statehood is, as
stated, very, very relative, and I even wrote that this contrasts with
identity as we know it today. The point is that identity did not matter when
nobody had anything to do with themselves through it. Aristocrats, as written,
are the exception due to their privilege of free time and surplus. The
identity of a man who does one thing out of survival necessity is orders of
magnitude less complex than the identity of a man who does several things and
prides himself on all of them, and continuously has the option of re-defining
himself.

Moreover, I have to admit that the assumption of no identity before the
Industrial Revolution is something I studied in the entirety of two social
geography courses dealing with how context defines the modern imaginary (as
everything is only imagined with us).

------
teyc
Both Moot and the author are correct.

It is well accepted that anonymity brings out the worst in people (the author
has said so himself). It is also understood that context guides behaviours.
For example, one might be more disinhibited on a tropical holiday. Another
example is footballers behaving badly on tours. Another one is the
unbelievable atrocities soldiers commit away from their home "context".

Moot's thesis is that people become interesting when you provide them a
different context, while the author is saying that it is far healthier to have
one well integrated identity.

~~~
neoveller
To connect the dots here: I think both Moot and I employ a sort of
essentialist rhetoric to get attention, the same way you would write something
enormously more controversial under a pen name. A more strict interpretation
of Moot's argument is that Facebook should be filled with pen names, as people
need to be creative instead of simply informative, and that rigidity kills
creativity. A strict interpretation of my argument is just as you said, but
also that the well integrated identity comes before anonymity before anonymity
may become useful / audienced. Moot's simple championing of anonymity misses
the point that you need an audience first, which is gathered by putting people
in a position where they can willingly be exposed to its content. It's the
same as why farmville isn't 100% evil: it brings people to the web who
otherwise would never be there, and acts as a positive externality on all
other web sub-industries.

------
prodigal_erik
> [Autobiographical memory] might be boosted by anonymity and pseudonyms, as a
> way to pull down barriers to risky behavior, but anonymity and pseudonyms do
> much less for aggregate [utility per person] than postmodern, perceivably
> rigid reflections of reality on Facebook do.

There's a lot here about self-gratification through performative identity, but
nothing about the value society derives from the unflinching evaluation of
unpopular ideas. I find this to be nearly absent in "this will go on your
permanent record" oriented venues, which in turn is why I find those all but
useless. It's reception and counters to my arguments that I value; what I
write would be anonymous (and on slashdot it was) if a dissociated pseudonym
weren't required.

------
tlholaday
Why is he capitalizing moot's name? Is it just to be rude?

~~~
neoveller
I did not mention the name Christopher Poole anywhere. Capitalizing on his pen
name was within his argument's wishes.

~~~
wnoise
Capitalizing, not capitalizing on. As in spelling with a capital M, rather
than a lower case m.

------
rhizome
_Key points:

Identity refers to how we reference ourselves, primarily in relation to
relationships, experiences, and possessions._

What is your basis for this assertion?

~~~
neoveller
Identity comes from the concept of identification/classification. These are
notions which evolved with modernism in Western society, or the ability to
measure things exactly for the sake of predicting and knowing. There is no
exact meaning for identity due to its elusive nature, as its meaning belongs
to the fluid individual. My post presumes the definition, and yes, that makes
it just an assertion.

~~~
rhizome
Well, your entire paper hinges on a definition of identity that is completely
internal, yet your measurements are external.

------
Causification
I am amazed that someone would write so much so thoroughly yet completely miss
the point that some people don't give a damn about UPP or identity. Want to
know what my reputation is? Too bad, it doesn't exist. Excepting the handful
of close, personal friends, everyone who communicates with me is forced to
judge me based purely on the merits of what I am saying, and not any sort of
accumulated respect.

That's exactly the way I like it, because it's honest. If I say something
stupid, I want people to say it's stupid. If I say something intelligent, I
want them to say it's intelligent. The concept that I would be dishonest or
hold my tongue instead of saying exactly what I thought for fear of what the
listener would think of me is little better than lying to their face. The
world would be a healthier place if everyone was called out on their
stupidity, every time, by everyone there.

Anonymity enables honesty. Rigid identities are for people who are afraid of
what they might hear if there was nothing protecting them from the truth of
other peoples' thoughts.

Do you think this comment is the most ignorant, idiotic thing you've read
today? Then tell me so, without being influenced by who I am, or dissuaded by
anything I might do or think in the future. I welcome your honest opinion, for
I know it is based purely on what I have said.

~~~
chc
You're ignoring something important: Talk is cheap, and listening is
expensive. Judging only the merit of ideas is _nice_ , but it is only
applicable within a small community. Once you have more people than you can
easily listen to (even on a cursory level), it becomes a search problem. I
don't have time to seek and consider opinions from all 7 billion people on the
planet whenever I want an opinion on anything — particularly the kind of large
topics where I'd generally want someone else's opinion — so I will focus my
attention on people I know to be helpful. If I can't identify you as somebody
who might have something to say, most of the time you'll get mentally lumped
in with the teeming masses who don't even have an informed opinion on the
matter.

~~~
jamesbritt
_Talk is cheap, and listening is expensive. Judging only the merit of ideas is
nice, but it is only applicable within a small community._

Even in a small community attention can be expensive. I've worked with a
number of developer groups. Within each I would eventually reach a point where
people knew enough about me that I could ask what might initially seem a
stupid question but often lead to some interesting discussion because I was
trying to a) make sure I understood this or that assumption and b) see if some
assumptions were just plain wrong.

And the group knew I wasn't just dense or playing games; I might be wrong
about this or that, but I was sincere and likely had at least _some_ insight
to offer.

I'm sure there are various ways to get these same kinds of group discussion
going but reputation saves a whole lot of time when trying to explore a
counterintuitive idea.

Even in small groups people have lots to do, so having an "in" based on
reputation is important.

BTW, I do share the OP's point about bluntness, and I've been fortunate to
work with people who, after considering something I've suggested, would give a
direct, matter-of-fact opinion.

But this may be another case where personal knowledge helps; most people
respected each other well enough to understand that there's a difference
between dumping on an idea and dumping on a person. The nice thing was that no
one thought you stupid because you said or did stupid things (if your overall
reputation was for general non-stupidity) and it made communication easier.

