Ask Slashdot: Do We Need Pseudonymous Social Networking?

An anonymous reader writes "While the idea of anonymous social networking sounds like an oxymoron, the use of pseudonyms to mask a user's online identity has a long history that stretches back to the earliest days of the Internet and local bulletin board systems (BBS). Such imperfect anonymity, which can often be unmasked with a few well-defined Google searches, has led to abuses like the invention of 'spambots' and the persistence of forum trolls. But, as the BBC reports, pseudonyms have their place in online communities, especially where identities are a risky commodity, under oppressive state regimes and governments where corporate interests increasingly dominate the interests of individuals: 'Some users choose to hide their identity to avoid being found by people they would not like to be contacted by. Others live in countries where identification could have serious implications for those who have expressed political views or associated themselves with others who have.' Should Google+ and maybe even the notorious Facebook evolve into two-tiered sites where those who choose to remain anonymous are 'identified' as such and denied access to certain site features, while being free to post, blog, or tweet their views, without summarily getting their accounts suspended or revoked?"

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we do.

Yes

[Daetrin]

Take a look at Wikipedia's list of social networking sites. [wikipedia.org]

The application of the name may be fairly recent, but the idea of social networking sites has been around forever. (In fact you could easily make a case for including Slashdot in the list on the basis of the friends/foes system and journal posts.) And very few of them have required the use of "real" names, and even fewer of those have actually tried to enforce it on a serious basis.

Yes we need it.

[gurps_npc]

In large part because pretending we can prevent it is stupid.

The entire thing about being online is that text communication does not include any identifiable clues. You can't see the face, you can't hear the voice, you can't even measure the timing of the key strikes.

Worse, it is very easy to get and use someone else's password. (A password dictionary of the top 100 passwords will work in at least 5% of cases).

To require real identification would involve a massive change in technology that would unnecessarily invade a lot of privacy for things NOT done on social networks.

The internet is designed for privacy, not security. Pretending otherwise just makes you look like a fool

How quaintly naive...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While it isn't false that users in repressive regimes have an obvious interest in privacy, the notion that the feds are your primary concern is so hopelessly naive that I almost find it hard to believe that it isn't purposefully deceptive.

So, let's look at the social-networking life of your average resident of a Not-Repressive(tm) contemporary society: The secret police aren't going to be bashing down the door for saying the wrong thing, so nothing to worry about, eh? Well, yeah, not exactly...

How many schools(for the under-21s in the crowd) will treat a picture of you with a red plastic cup as presumptive evidence of illegal drinking? How many companies will skip you for being a touch controversial online? How about that canadian case of an insurance company deciding that a picture of the patient smiling was evidence that they were not depressed, and further support could be cut? Heck, to ignore organizations entirely, how about the 'timmy thinks he might be of the homosexual persuasion, doesn't really want ma and pa bible-belt to find out' use case?

While repressive regimes do suck, and anybody who runs one should definitely trip and hit their head on a bullet, the notion that the state is your primary concern(among people who have plenty of leisure internet and broadly unfettered access) is openly absurd. It's the private sector: schools, colleges, corporations, parents, etc. who you really need to watch out for.

and furthermore...

[fyngyrz]

Why do I need your real name, or the thing you claim is your real name? What, exactly, am I to do with it that is legitimate use? Am I to look up your address so as to stalk you? Seriously, why do I, as a social website member, need anything other than some unique identifier so conversations can be directed? Frankly, I don't need your real name, nor do I want it. The question here really is: Who does want your real name -- and why?

Facebook and Google want your real name. They want it because they're going to sell it; it, and the habits they associate with it, by tracking every move you make that they are able to. They're going to sell it to corporations; give it to the government; etc. If you're ok with that, then fine, give 'em your real name. What I wonder, really, is why you'd be ok with that. Too young to remember McCarthyism, perhaps? Don't understand the reasons why privacy was given such primacy in the constitution? Just plain... dim? It's an interesting question, certainly.

Consider Publius

[Bob9113]

"While the idea of anonymous social networking sounds like an oxymoron, the use of pseudonyms to mask a user's online identity has a long history that stretches back to the earliest days of the Internet and local bulletin board systems (BBS)."

The use of pseudonymous communication goes a bit further back than that. The value to society is rather plainly displayed in the body of the Federalist Papers, by Publius -- a pseudonym for Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Anyone who argues that pseudonymity is a bad thing has to explain how The Federalist Papers would have been better without it, or how The United States would have been better without The Federalist Papers.

Hell yes.

[tverbeek]

Hi, my name is Todd VerBeek, and I'm gay.

I can say that. My family know, most of my friends know (if they're paying attention), I've even been on local TV talking about it. I don't have much legal protection, but I'm probably not going to get fired for it (again). I live in a community where people probably won't beat me for it (any more), and my government pretty much just treats me with neglect, not persecution.

But not everyone is so lucky.

One of my earliest forays into what's now called "social networking" was on CompuServ, back in late 1980s, where there was one section of one forum where people could talk openly about their experiences as gay/lesbian/bi people. That particular forum offered a level of anonymity: no full names. It would not have worked otherwise. And I might not have made it here without it.

Yeah, it's a quarter century later now, but there are parts of the world (even parts of my own country) that are further behind than that. And not everyone has a quarter century of practice at dealing with self-disclosure. So yes: people like me in places like that need pseudonymous social networking. Obvious answer. Full stop. Next question?

Re:no

[iceaxe]

You (and Facebook, and Google, sadly) drastically underestimate the sorts of ways these tools can be legitimately used (not abused).

You say:

Facebook, which is all about connecting with people you actually know

But what if the group of people with whom I wish to connect know me by my pseudonym? And I know them by theirs? And none of us has a clue what each others' so-called "real names" are, and like it that way?

I have no interest in spamming, trolling, or scamming anyone. I just want to use the tool(s) in the way that works best for me, and harms nobody.