Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Real names, real problems: Pseudonymity under siege

"I don't want people finding out about me in a way I didn't intend and then using it against me," she says. "Being a fetishist also makes you a more interesting target to cyber-stalkers. Most of the people in the kink community are nice, but it only takes one jerk to ruin your life."
But Elsa's ability to keep her two identities separate is eroding. Major social networks now require users to supply real names or risk having their accounts deleted. To reign in trolls, popular sites have vowed to verify the identities of registered users. As online services incorporate facial recognition and other biometric technologies to identify users, the notion of participating online using a name not found on your government-issued ID may become a quaint relic of the early Internet.
Pseudonymity, part of Net culture since its early beginnings, is under siege.
Last month the Huffington Post decided to remove the cloak, announcing plans to "independently verify" the identity of each registered user. In a blog post explaining the decision, managing editor Jimmy Soni wrote:
"It's simple and painless to decry online toxicity; it's harder and more important to do something about it. We at The Huffington Post have chosen to take an affirmative step by verifying the identities of new commenter accounts. We won't eliminate every last note of negativity and nastiness on the site, but we believe this change will offer the guarantee of a gut check."
Besides attempting to enforce a more genteel Internet, the push for "real names" has a more commercial motivation. Attaching a legal name to a screen name can open up a trove of commercial and government data about an individual. The more verifiable the identity, the more valuable it becomes to advertisers and e-tailers.

Users have pushed back, but with only limited success. After introducing a hard line "real names" policy for Google+ in 2011 – inciting what became known as the "Nymwars" – Google softened its stance on pseudonyms, but only to a degree. Non-legal names are allowed on the social network, provided the user can prove it is "an established online identity with a meaningful following." When asked to define "meaningful," a Google spokesperson replied, "we don't actually quantify" that. 
 ITWorld

21 comments:

edutcher said...

The real problem may be less the weirdos than the Feds.

Or is that distinction without difference?

test said...

Of course the left is going to lead this effort. Targeting people personally for their beliefs has been part of their modus operandi for decades.

yashu said...

the notion of participating online using a name not found on your government-issued ID may become a quaint relic of the early Internet.

Well, that's a terrible prospect. For me (I may be atypical), anonymity/ pseudonymity is a sine qua non of online life; without it, I probably wouldn't participate on the internet, at all. (Or only in the driest, most limited, self-censoring way.)

I'm not on Facebook or Twitter either, for that reason. I don't like having the permanent record of a one and only, unitary "identity" out there, archived, on display, like a pinned and splayed animal, belly up for the dissecting knife. Accessible to entities (governmental, corporate, institutional, journalistic, personal, etc.) I DO NOT WANT tracking me.

We live so much of our lives-- including our "private" lives-- online, nowadays (even the parts of our life, "real" life, we consider offline are so intertwined with, caught up in, the web). And in Obama's America, especially-- among many other things, just take what we've seen re IRS abuse-- this kind of forced transparency and unitary public (governmental) identity makes one a perfect & tractable 'subject', vulnerable to varieties of 'fascism,' soft and hard. The ultimate peer pressure.

It's like being in the Panopticon-- you have to be on your "best behavior" (politically correct by various criteria-- e.g. not engaging in "anti-Obama" speech), or else-- you know not where, how, or by whom, you may be punished (IRS investigation? license denied? tenure denied? your health care de-prioritized? art critically panned? waiver or other privilege denied to you, granted to your competitors? EPA harassing your company? journalistic/ journolistic hit piece? etc.)

Fuck that.

yashu said...

PS And I'm someone who (more often than not) despises trolls, mobys, sockpuppets, etc.-- deceptive and bad faith online communication. Hate it.

I may find that behavior ethically contemptible and oh so annoying, but not enough to favor an end to online anonymity/ pseudonymity. I value privacy more, much more.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

The siege won't succeed until they build a large wooden badger.

bagoh20 said...

Like the ACA, the worst possible solution to an otherwise tolerable problem with many other remedies that are not worse than the disease.

bagoh20 said...

Why is the solution to every problem now a reduction of freedom, or an invasion of privacy.

deborah said...

Depressing. So true what bago said. If you cannot anonymously say what you believe, you could be targeted by government.

And nice to know anyone can drive 18 hours with Depends on (so they don't have to stop for a potty break) and try and kill you.

deborah said...

Oops, I meant yashu. Bago make an equally valid point.

It really comes down to do-gooder, busybody libs trying to run things.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

On the car radio this morning I heard Neil Young singing what I assume was "Harvest Moon" and it made me nostalgic for that golden age I never experienced.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric the Fruit Bat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amartel said...

Great song! But how old are you? Harvest Moon was released in 1992.

And, yes, funny how the solution to all problems is always More Government.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I post anonymously, not because I'm trying to hide anything, but more for safety. Having been not only cyber stalked but having been unpleasantly contacted in real life IRL from internet connections, I am as careful as I can be to try to protect my real identity. I could be more careful and never say anything about myself. However, hopefully I am only giving out vague information.

Since I don't live in a large city or densely populated area, if I were to give out my real name it would be incredibly easy to find out exactly where I live. I'm not about to do that.

The other issue is the increasing spying and data collecting by the government. There is no reason that Big Brother or Google should know what I am looking at or what I am saying on the internet...or anyplace else for that matter.

Like Yashu....I don't Facebook or use any other social networking sites. I do on rare occasion Pinterest but that was only to be able to see the items that my family is liking so I can buy gifts. I'm not interested in friends on the net. I'm not that interested in friends IRL...lol

KCFleming said...

The goal is less unnecessary variation in speech.

All speech should be uniform, all blog posts should match.

Consensus Über Alles.

bagoh20 said...

If I ever got stalked, I'd introduce myself and teach her lesson about disappointment.

rhhardin said...

I use my real name and say what I think.

That got me banned from mandatory annual consciousness raising seminars.

Then there was the lunch table conversation where kettle logic was brought up, and a woman turned me in.

The boss later came in and we discussed it, which I always enjoy. The discussion ended with, "Well, don't talk to women."

You can't do that anonymously.

Trooper York said...

Doesn't the restraining order have something to do with that rh? Just sayn'

virgil xenophon said...

I'm totally with Yashu & DBQ here. No facebook, twitter, etc. for this little Indian. I would use TOR or some other anonymizers but they do slow down the 'puter.

JAL said...

I have a Facebook account I use so rarely I can't remember when I posted anything.

I hate hate hate the interconnectedness set up between google yahoo facebook youtube twitter and every which way.

I had to set up a gmail account to participate in an online meeting and it connected into my blogger account which is anonymous and that really pissed me off. I have to watch carefully what name comes up.

Did I mention I hate it all?

A local newspaper has gone to an all facebook ID for commenting online. I actually do sympathize there because the newspaper comments could be really over the top ugly. And to get into the print version one has to have a verifiable name and address.

I do not post comments on any site which requires facebook ID.

I don't mind the anonymity (sp?) here or on any site, really. If you don't want to post with your real name, fine.

If it's ugly? I stop reading.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I have two Google accounts--one for my kids' school PTA of which I am a senior officer, and my own. I've ALMOST accidentally posted here under the XXXXX XXXXXX Middle School PTA account, heh.