Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks

Ask Slashdot: Do We Need Pseudonymous Social Networking? 213

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: Do We Need Pseudonymous Social Networking?

Comments Filter:
  • Yes. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:19PM (#36925686)

    Do we need pseudonyms? Yes.

    Here's why: because for every troll you manage to thwart by making them more identifiable and thus hopefully more accountable, there are innumerable people out there that for various reasons wish to remain anonymous but have useful things to contribute. Sometimes the only way in which they are able to safely contribute is via anonymous or pseudonymous accounts (e.g., for reasons of job or personal security). Otherwise they will remain silent.

    You may have some idea of how many trolls you've stopped, but trolls will inevitably still be there and you'll never know how many people you have discouraged from participating that aren't trolls.

    Let me put it this way. I've only ever contributed to Slashdot as AC. Nevertheless, I have submitted numerous posts that have received +5 Insightful from the mods, and I've had 3 or 4 story submissions accepted too over the years. I wouldn't have submitted them without AC.

    It's also why I don't have a Facebook page, and why I'm no longer interested in Google+.

  • Re:no (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:39PM (#36925952) Homepage

    It'd be easy to incorporate pseudonyms in Google+. Just let the user set what nicknames their circles would see them as. So your blogging friends might see you as CleverBlogNickName while your family might see you as Real Name and your college buddies might see you as Frat Nickname. Your blogging friends wouldn't be able to see your real name even if Google had it in the Profile.

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Working...