3 ms·

Exactly. And the phone number and/or the IMEI is the technological identifier that ties all our identities together.

by mafribe 10y ago

dredmorbius 10y ago
Multi-SIM phones. Non-SIM (Wifi-only) phones. Multiple phone-users. There is no universal identifier. I may absolutely insist there isn't. And I strongly suspect phone tech (number-based dialing) is on its way out. For all the reasons Mossberg states, the one app I hate most is the phone, and I don't have one. Haven't for years. There are phones by which I can occasionally be reached. There's a mobile phone which occasionally has service. Both are highly deprecated.
- mafribe 10y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point. You are referring to rare edge cases that don't invalidate the general point.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    They aren't rare edge cases. Assumptions about identity tend to fail. Perversely. Badly.
    - mafribe 10y ago
      Yes, absolute assumptions about identity fail badly, as you correctly point out. My point is different: for most people the combo of phone number/IMEI and the phone as physical token is the de-facto electronically addressable social identity. All major social networks are based on this empirically observable fact. Those for whom phone/phone number/IMEI is not enough might encounter problems with the current state of social networking.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        > Those for whom phone/phone number/IMEI is not enough might encounter problems with the current state of social networking. They do, and they cope. It's not that it is mathematically impossible to share a smartphone. Think of poorer families that have one mobile per household. Think of I-dont-know-what-kind-of-thinking-leads-to-that families that use a shared e-mail (or even Facebook) account. Hell, think of my younger sister who for some time borrowed smartphone from my mom, because she didn't have one but wanted to check Facebook / Instagram / whatever regularly. One device per person & one account per person is not universal when you start looking outside of tech-inclined people and their immediate families. Sure this assumption probably holds for most people, but I'd wager that the "most" here means something like 60-80%, and not 99.999%.
        mafribe 10y ago
        Nothing in social will ever be 99.999%, so what? 60-80% is enough for the network effect to overcome everything else, and for the phone/IMEI to become the de-facto standard. Just like TCP/IP/Ethernet/Wifi became the networking de-facto standard despite other networking protocols existing (and being superior in some dimensions like ATM). The remaining 20-40% will adapt. Some of them will not have their needs met. The world moves on. The interesting question is: what does the new fungibility of social software mean for the lock-in-based business model of the likes of Twitter/Facebook etc? How will they regain lock-in? Will they be able to add non-fungible features, like e.g. WeChat, or will they whither?
        dredmorbius 10y ago
        That shared account one. Yep. Now make it two people, one account, multiple buugy IMAP 4 server interactions, and a compulsive tendency to delete old email "so it doesn't slow down the computer". Plus, of course, an absolute inability to tell something to just one of them. Multiple other confounding issues.

Exactly. And the phone number and/or the IMEI is the technological identifier that ties all our identities together.

by mafribe 10y ago

Exactly. And the phone number and/or the IMEI is the technological identifier that ties all our identities together.

Multi-SIM phones. Non-SIM (Wifi-only) phones. Multiple phone-users. There is no universal identifier. I may absolutely insist there isn't. And I strongly suspect phone tech (number-based dialing) is on its way out. For all the reasons Mossberg states, the one app I hate most is the phone, and I don't have one. Haven't for years. There are phones by which I can occasionally be reached. There's a mobile phone which occasionally has service. Both are highly deprecated.

mafribe 10y ago
I'm not sure I understand your point. You are referring to rare edge cases that don't invalidate the general point.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  They aren't rare edge cases. Assumptions about identity tend to fail. Perversely. Badly.
  - mafribe 10y ago
    Yes, absolute assumptions about identity fail badly, as you correctly point out. My point is different: for most people the combo of phone number/IMEI and the phone as physical token is the de-facto electronically addressable social identity. All major social networks are based on this empirically observable fact. Those for whom phone/phone number/IMEI is not enough might encounter problems with the current state of social networking.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > Those for whom phone/phone number/IMEI is not enough might encounter problems with the current state of social networking. They do, and they cope. It's not that it is mathematically impossible to share a smartphone. Think of poorer families that have one mobile per household. Think of I-dont-know-what-kind-of-thinking-leads-to-that families that use a shared e-mail (or even Facebook) account. Hell, think of my younger sister who for some time borrowed smartphone from my mom, because she didn't have one but wanted to check Facebook / Instagram / whatever regularly. One device per person & one account per person is not universal when you start looking outside of tech-inclined people and their immediate families. Sure this assumption probably holds for most people, but I'd wager that the "most" here means something like 60-80%, and not 99.999%.
      - mafribe 10y ago
        Nothing in social will ever be 99.999%, so what? 60-80% is enough for the network effect to overcome everything else, and for the phone/IMEI to become the de-facto standard. Just like TCP/IP/Ethernet/Wifi became the networking de-facto standard despite other networking protocols existing (and being superior in some dimensions like ATM). The remaining 20-40% will adapt. Some of them will not have their needs met. The world moves on. The interesting question is: what does the new fungibility of social software mean for the lock-in-based business model of the likes of Twitter/Facebook etc? How will they regain lock-in? Will they be able to add non-fungible features, like e.g. WeChat, or will they whither?
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        That shared account one. Yep. Now make it two people, one account, multiple buugy IMAP 4 server interactions, and a compulsive tendency to delete old email "so it doesn't slow down the computer". Plus, of course, an absolute inability to tell something to just one of them. Multiple other confounding issues.