Internet Identity and Anonymity
So I was reading this piece on design observer about, more or less, the use of anonymous handles on the internet. The author suggests this:
Having a pseudonym is not about, as some argue, building a brand story or mystique; it is about masking identity, which is inherently deceitful. Unless one has a good reason — like being on a black list or having a life in peril by a repressive government — the practice of anonymity should be considered unacceptable.
It’s a thought provoking piece with a variety of reasoning but ultimately suffers, as I find these types of arguments do, from several fatal flaws.
The first problem is technical - what the author would like is for everyone to use their full names as bloggers or commenters on the web. How can this be verified? For most people, most of the time, it can’t. That is, if I suddenly started signing these posts as Felix McKule - would that all of a sudden add some amount of awesomeness that wasn’t already present to my postings? Is Felix McKule any more worthy an internet presence than Felix? Or MadCap2932? No… that probably isn’t my real name, but it could be, how would you know? Any “real names” on the net generally are simply two word pseudonyms, for all we of the internet know.
He suggests that real names have real email addresses… so, if my real email address was felix.mckule@gmail.com would that make it any more real? No. Beyond all that, the one place I know of that actually uses credit cards to verify real names is Amazon - and if you want you can get the “Real Name” badge. Does that actually change anyone’s opinion of your review? Do I really care that Joe Smith is that guy’s real name who wrote that crappy review? Not really… Perhaps some people do, I don’t know, but Amazon’s the only place I know of where real name actually means anything.
Still, today, many people prefer to evoke a sexy screen persona to mask their drab, real world identity — or conversely, adopt a bland handle to hide a well-known public reputation. Sometimes screen names are not about hiding behind a digital front, but rather a way of intentionally building mysterious (and possibly profitable) personas.
I find this to be particularly offensive. According to him, if you aren’t in danger of political persecution and you use a screen name, you must be compensating for your crappily boring life. In a world where ephemeral conversation is a thing of the past, where everything is stored and archived forever, where telemarketers, spammers and phishers find you, privacy should not be a thing to be questioned. It is the same argument as the one oft used against encryption and surveillance, if you have nothing to hide, why should you care? You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. You have a right to whatever privacy you’d like to give yourself, without other’s questioning your motives (or social graces). There are cases where this isn’t true, but as long as we’re all making sweeping statements…
Another problem “real names” proposes to solve is this one:
Legitimate comments and criticism, even when shrill or strident in tone, should not be squelched. Yet, it is only fair that those who respond to posts reveal themselves to further the debate (and let the debaters know the history of the writer).
This is a particularly old school mode of thinking where the arguer confuses identity and anonymity. Using my real name does not let them know my history - using any name consistently (and verifiably) does. People leave tracks online all the time - using a single handle is the easiest one to follow. Maintaining a website (blog or otherwise) is another form of identity. When people post a message here, I love it when they include the URL to their own site - I’m no closer to learning their real name, but I am much closer to seeing what they are all about. (Which is why I was quite annoyed to discover that blogspot has removed the ability to leave a url with your posts - presumably to boost their own forthcoming Profiles usage).
Online identity is as pervasive as any - if someone has participated in a community for awhile - they have a long track record of behaviour. It is easy to see where they are coming from from their history - that, much more than knowing his name is John Smith, determines how much weight I give his words.
Many websites (AIGA Voice is one of them) require that anyone making a comment provide their real email address before their words are posted. This safeguard is necessary and provides a modicum of editorial oversight and moderation.
Again, what form of verification is this? Anyone can get a hotmail account that says anything - 2prong.com will accept email to whatever address you specify and the domain changes every couple weeks! Email verification does help some problems but verifying identity much less real names is not really one of them.
I’m not saying that everyone should be anonymous - all I’m saying is that everything has its place. Perhaps more blogging should be public and transparent, but maybe not. I am saying that as of right now - for most people most of the time - using a “real name” and a “real email address” is no more a guarantee of anything than using a 1 word handle and that’s perfectly fine almost all the time.
