Right on -- I've found I have to use 3-4 different browsers for normal, everyday usage, because it seriously creeps me out when, for example, I open a YouTube video for my daughter in the wrong browser, and the banner at the top reminds me that "this YouTube account is managed by [my employer]", if I happened to use the "work" browser that needs to be signed into my work Google Apps account.<p>I'm not even sure that my employer has any access to my YouTube history. I'm sure he's not interested anyway. BUT whenever I pick the wrong browser and see that banner I feel invaded. So, there's a browser that's work-only, and has all of the cookies for that identity only. And it's not my default, so to open work URLs sometimes I have to cut & paste.<p>I used to get the same cold water shock whenever I visited a random site and saw the Facebook like button with "0 of your friends like this!" I don't WANT to know what sites my Facebook "friends" visit and/or like. I don't want all of THEM looking over my shoulder either, or Facebook looking over my shoulder either, for that matter. I don't get that shock anymore -- Facebook has its own browser entirely, and its cookies are aggressively deleted from other browsers (and "aggressive" is needed; it's hard to keep them off!). This fix also cut down my Facebook usage from multiple visits a day to maybe once a fortnight, but so it goes.<p>Same recoil whenever yet another site asks me to link the to Facebook (or link up all of my "friends"). Even Skype keeps prompting me.<p>I'm quite sure there are friends who can't find me on this or that site, even though I have an account, because I give every site different email addresses when I sign up. I have never, ever heard from a friend that this inconvenienced them (that my primary email seems to be registered nowhere).<p>There should be a third button, after "Connect to Facebook" and "No thanks; not yet", that simply says "FUCK no", and maybe a registry I can join so they can all stop asking me.<p>Er... strike the registry idea, though. What email address would I put?
I totally agree with that. When I build my websites I systematically refuse to use the whole "social" stack. I don't really care if I have less users or if they have to register, I think these things matter more than the extra effort you have to put in to think about an alais.<p>Sadly this article illustrates also the hypocrisy of these claims because down below you can see "Post your comment with Disqus" and not a single alternative... Ironic isn't it ?
I don't think she is naive and its a good thing to be optimistic. She touched on a core issue that social networks will have a hard time addressing in the coming years. Perhaps it is because its they tried hard to mimic how relationships worked in the moment and people change, moment by moment. I think the problem that needs to be solved is that people change organically, moment by moment until they are a very different person because of the many small changes that occur through the years.<p>There are no tools that I know of to provide this context of individual change for those who read what we have written or recorded on video years after the fact. And speaking only for myself, I have changed a little since yesterday and a lot since my early twenties.<p>Does that make sense? If we think about leaving a legacy for people we can't know but will be able to speak to in ten or thirty years, how do we provide them the insight into the significant or cumulative changes that influenced changes our beliefs? It's not like we can sit down with them over a beer and say, "That thing I wrote about social issue X, well I used to believe Y about it and then really significant things happend to me and I completely changed. I know it's weird."<p>I believe these are very difficult tools to build because they have to capture some of the more ephemeral aspects of humanity in a way thats easy for the producer to manage and the consumer to quickly comprehend.
I'm ready for the negative karma, I guess... but I just have to wonder why people insist that identity isn't singular or that it can't be singular.<p>What is the apprehension? I understand the privacy concerns but when it comes down to identity being multi-faceted, that seems like a social issue rather than a personal one.<p>What I mean by that is that the only reason it is multi-faceted is because someone who likes to do X and also Y, for some reason doesn't want the people in group X to know that they also like Y and vice versa. Why? Not because X and Y aren't both part of their identity, but because members of X might scoff at their participation in Y.<p>Your identity is singular, it's you, you know who you are, but by segmenting your identity, you're just trying to hide part of who you are from others because either you are worried about how others will perceive you or how you might be treated differently if others know you as you know yourself. That's too bad.<p>Pseudonyms and anonymity are great for letting you try new things and fail without spoiling others' perception of your actual identity, they let us get a feel for new environments, but they are not a new or segmented identity, they are just a channel through which we can experiment with and get feedback on our identity.<p>Just a thought, I'm sure others have much more comprehensive ideas about this so if I'm way off, sorry.
I think that what "real names only" people don't understand is that unique real names are designed for a physical world in which we can say and do things behind walls and closed doors. The internet doesn't have walls or distances. There is no separation between the work office and the dance club. A Google search and our boss knows who are our friends, what are our political opinions, and all things we can keep private in the physical world. The use of pseudonyms recreates the distances necessary for our privacy.
This is why so many schemes that promise "single sign on" fail. People have lots of identities (and complexes!).<p>OpenID and the like all try to link them all together. For me it just doesn't sit right: especially online. The whole point being I can have multiple personas.<p>No one is really anonymous anymore. It is getting much harder to preserve but I think sites that allow you to have personas will flourish in the future.
Totally agree with this. Identity has its place online, for sure, but I would definitely like the option to be an anon and still participate in discussions online.<p>As it is I refuse to link my social accounts to any new web/mobile apps and always opt for an email sign up if one is available. Sadly this has kept me away from some good apps (canv.as beta, turntable.fm, and a few more) but oh well. Life went on before whatever app I am missing out on.
There's a lot to be said for non-anonymous services. A classic Penny-Arcade comic strip sums up the internet well. Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Fuckwad. <a href="http://images.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2010/01/215499488_8pSZr-L-2.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://images.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2010/01/215499488_8pS...</a><p>It's why you can't play games on Xbox Live without being called a faggot either over voice chat or in private message. It's why websites such as Fat, Ugly, or Slutty exist. <a href="http://fatuglyorslutty.com/" rel="nofollow">http://fatuglyorslutty.com/</a>
About 6 months ago, Chris Poole (moot) put it brilliantly: Our identities are multi-faceted, both online and in real life, and it's wrong to expect people to use a single identity for everything.<p>I was absolutely expecting to see a link to moot's statement, and was slightly disappointed when I didn't find one.<p><a href="http://mashable.com/2011/10/18/chris-poole-4chan-web-2/" rel="nofollow">http://mashable.com/2011/10/18/chris-poole-4chan-web-2/</a><p><a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/4chans_chris_poole_facebook_google_are_doing_it_wr.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/4chans_chris_poole_face...</a>
~s/anonymity/pseudonymity<p>You can establish multiple personas and associate various speech and behavior with each, but those are pseudonyms rather than actual anonymous behavior.<p>Still: anonymous (or pseudonymous) speech is a core component of free speech, and it's a liberty we need to preserve both legally and technically.
I'm just wondering how someone can have an online experience such that when they come across a website that allows anon comments, they are so taken aback that they write an entire blog post.<p>Not that I don't agree with her sentiment. I do. I guess it's even more refreshing to hear her POV when her experience of the internet seems naïve.<p>It's too bad we don't hear why she's decided to keep Disqus after coming to her conclusions.