6 ms·

"You have one identity. The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an

by kylec 16y ago

"You have one identity. The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly … Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." It's not a lack of integrity - what people say and how people act is always based on the context it's in. There are things you'd say to your friends that you wouldn't say to your family or even other friends. It's always been this way, and it's pretty arrogant for Mark and, consequently, Facebook to assume otherwise. This has actually pretty much pushed me off Facebook, as the only stuff I post is what falls in the relatively small subset of stuff I'd tell to my family, coworkers, boss, friends, and people that I know online.

wiredfool 16y ago
Multiple identities are real, online and in meatspace. You all see a different 'me' than my wife or kids see, or my oarents see, or my coworkers. I manage different identities online, depending on what I've got invested in the community. Some places, I'm the voice of reason, such as it is. Some places, I'm anonymous, because there are not entirely sane people and its a local forum, and people could know where I live. It's not dishonest, it's real. I do try to avoid having multiple personalities in one community though, since that's just rude. So, I'm not using facebook's facet flattening system.
wisty 16y ago
Anyone trying to beat facebook should read that quote every day. People should, in an ideal world, behave with integrity. But it's not an ideal world. My boss shouldn't care what I'm doing in my own time, but he might. The military shouldn't care if a potential recruit once tried pot at a college party, but they might. No employer should care about sexual orientation, but they probably do. It's not about integrity. It's about living in a hypercritically judgemental society. Choosing to remain slightly anonymous is one way to maintain your integrity. It's better than treating every statement like a PR release. Like Mark does, if he has the integrity to say everything using his own name, like he tells us to.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  To play devil's advocate here for a moment. You state a lot of things that people shouldn't do. Isn't it kinda sad that the one thing we shouldn't be doing, being ourselves, isn't on that list? That's what this discussion is essentially about. Freedom to think what we want, be who we are? Maybe the goal shouldn't be to hide from everyone, but to expose everyone for who we all really are? Maybe if everyone realizes how messed up everyone really is, we'll stop being so judgemental? So maybe the best way to do that is have a single identity, a single being. Sure, how you act might be different between different social groups, but that doesn't change who you are. Maybe this is an idealist outlook, but isn't it an ideal we should be working for, not hiding from?
  - narag 16y ago
    Often people are discouraged to talk their mind until they feel that enough people thinks the same way. Anonimity allows that. You first see that there's a lot of people of your same opinion, then you "come out": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      Still playing the devils advocate here... > Often people are discouraged to talk their mind until they feel that enough people thinks the same way. This is the case because people are so judgemental. As I posted in my original comment, eliminating the judgemental attitude of the majority of people would help with this.
      - narag 16y ago
        Why do you call it "devil's advocate"? I agree! I agreed to your previous comment too. "Coming out" seems to has been very useful for gays' rights. Maybe the question is in which point a controversy is. Is the controversial option legal? Or even are there laws that protect it? Current revolutions or cannabis are counter-examples. I'd also suggest to think about the asymmetry of responses. You might express your opinions in public, but someone could choose to anonymously not to hire you because of them.
natfriedman 16y ago
Right, try telling that to the tour guide I met in Burma last week whose real opinions about his country's government could get him put into a work camp (and who is a facebook user, like almost everyone we met in Burma).
- brlewis 16y ago
  Even your comment right there gives too much information. I think you should have withheld the person's line of work.
benohear 16y ago
That's especially true about humor. I can't remember the source, but "you can joke about anything, only not with everyone" rings true to me.
- nicolasp 16y ago
  French humorist Pierre Desproges originally made that comment ("On peut rire de tout, mais pas avec tout le monde").
tallanvor 16y ago
The lack of understanding Zuckerberg has about image is rather amazing. I think the fact that he has never had a real job - one where he could easily be fired for messing up, has a lot to do with this. You learn very quickly when you or someone else gets hell rained down upon them from a boss who decides they did or said something inappropriate - no matter what the context or meaning was. I know I've seen people get fired, or come close to it, for saying something that I never before would have given a second thought to, but I definitely did after that. So when it comes down to it, there is no way I'm going to risk my professional career by letting my Facebook identity be my public persona. Hell, I even have a rule against having family members friend me on Facebook. It's not about being a different person in each setting, it's about being able to act appropriately in each setting. --Being someone who is viewed as a dependable, professional expert at work, being able to have a serious discussion with my father about my mother's Alzheimer's at home, or being able to relax and let out my inner child a bit with friends. These are all parts of me, but there's a time and place for everything. Zuckerberg doesn't understand that.
- PedroCandeias 16y ago
  This. All this.
- Duff 16y ago
  I'm sure Zuckerberg gets this -- it is a pretty blatantly obvious concept. But addressing this technically is hard to do, and likely to be unsuccessful. Think about your own rules that you posted about. How is Facebook going to successfully deal with them? What happens when you decide that some friends get to see the "inner child" and some don't? There are probably ways to accomodate these things, but they are complicated, and 80% of the hundreds of millions of users will screw it up and blame Facebook. So Facebook deals with it by pushing it down to you and making your problems your problem. Don't want your boss to see the pictures of you doing body shots on Spring Break? Don't want your parents to know your sexual orientation? Fine -- don't post it on Facebook, or don't invite people to read it. It's not that Facebook doesn't get it -- they just choose not to get involved.
  - 16y ago
credo 16y ago
I agree but would add that it is not just about context. imo a desire for privacy is not the same thing as a "lack of integrity".
bigiain 16y ago
An interesting contrast to Eric Schmidt's view while he was CEO of Google: "every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends' social media sites." Possibly apocryphal or taken out of context if HoPo is the best reference I can find: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-s_n_684031.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/google-ceo-eric-sch... (conspiracy theory: I _did_ search Google - unsuccessfully - to try and find authoritative sources for that quote...)
eneveu 16y ago
"It's not a lack of integrity - what people say and how people act is always based on the context it's in. There are things you'd say to your friends that you wouldn't say to your family or even other friends." Exactly. Some people say "Google does not get social", but this Google UX researcher, at least, got it: http://www.slideshare.net/padday/the-real-life-social-network-v2 http://www.slideshare.net/padday/the-real-life-social-networ... (discussion at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867807 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867807)
billybob 16y ago
Agreed. In fact, this is a big part of why I dislike Facebook: the public nature of conversation distorts it. I have wonderful, deep conversations with my wife. I also have deep conversations with my best friend. I love them both, and I'm not hiding anything from either one. But the intimacy and tone of either conversation would be ruined by the presence of the other person. This isn't about duplicity; it's about the nature of friendship. The sense of humor between us, the shared memories, the references we don't have to explain - those are all different. Public conversation like wall posts lacks all of that. It's not inimate; it's self-conscious. It inherently lacks depth because it's dumbed down to the lowest common denominator for everyone who will see it. It's more like performance art than real conversation. That's why I'll take email over wall posts any day. I want to hear what you have to say to ME, not what you want everyone else seeing you say to me. It's not about secrets, it's about real, personal contact.
stuartjmoore 16y ago
Bad start-up idea: a website that lets people control multiple Facebook accounts as if they're one account with different "friend contexts". Or, something that makes lists on Facebook useful.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  It's a good technical idea, bad start-up idea. Facebook would nuke it on sight.
pasbesoin 16y ago
Comments like these make me wonder to what extent Zuckerberg is a two-dimensional figurehead. Maybe not as incompetent as some of our politicians, but nonetheless now the focal point for a lot of significant activity that is, at the least, outside his domain of expertise. (How much of it is still him, and how much (to what extent) is he, at this point, simply along for the ride?)
toptiger 16y ago
"Two identities = lack of integrity" is the kind of simplistic statement most often used by fascists, racists and other small minds. Unfortunately, this approach is often very persuasive for those who don't stop to think about what it really means. Stop and look at some of the simple, dumb statements you see in a typical advertising or political campaign.

by kylec 16y ago

wiredfool 16y ago

Multiple identities are real, online and in meatspace. You all see a different 'me' than my wife or kids see, or my oarents see, or my coworkers. I manage different identities online, depending on what I've got invested in the community. Some places, I'm the voice of reason, such as it is. Some places, I'm anonymous, because there are not entirely sane people and its a local forum, and people could know where I live. It's not dishonest, it's real. I do try to avoid having multiple personalities in one community though, since that's just rude. So, I'm not using facebook's facet flattening system.

wisty 16y ago

Anyone trying to beat facebook should read that quote every day. People should, in an ideal world, behave with integrity. But it's not an ideal world. My boss shouldn't care what I'm doing in my own time, but he might. The military shouldn't care if a potential recruit once tried pot at a college party, but they might. No employer should care about sexual orientation, but they probably do. It's not about integrity. It's about living in a hypercritically judgemental society. Choosing to remain slightly anonymous is one way to maintain your integrity. It's better than treating every statement like a PR release. Like Mark does, if he has the integrity to say everything using his own name, like he tells us to.

jasonlotito 16y ago
To play devil's advocate here for a moment. You state a lot of things that people shouldn't do. Isn't it kinda sad that the one thing we shouldn't be doing, being ourselves, isn't on that list? That's what this discussion is essentially about. Freedom to think what we want, be who we are? Maybe the goal shouldn't be to hide from everyone, but to expose everyone for who we all really are? Maybe if everyone realizes how messed up everyone really is, we'll stop being so judgemental? So maybe the best way to do that is have a single identity, a single being. Sure, how you act might be different between different social groups, but that doesn't change who you are. Maybe this is an idealist outlook, but isn't it an ideal we should be working for, not hiding from?
- narag 16y ago
  Often people are discouraged to talk their mind until they feel that enough people thinks the same way. Anonimity allows that. You first see that there's a lot of people of your same opinion, then you "come out": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    Still playing the devils advocate here... > Often people are discouraged to talk their mind until they feel that enough people thinks the same way. This is the case because people are so judgemental. As I posted in my original comment, eliminating the judgemental attitude of the majority of people would help with this.
    - narag 16y ago
      Why do you call it "devil's advocate"? I agree! I agreed to your previous comment too. "Coming out" seems to has been very useful for gays' rights. Maybe the question is in which point a controversy is. Is the controversial option legal? Or even are there laws that protect it? Current revolutions or cannabis are counter-examples. I'd also suggest to think about the asymmetry of responses. You might express your opinions in public, but someone could choose to anonymously not to hire you because of them.

natfriedman 16y ago

Right, try telling that to the tour guide I met in Burma last week whose real opinions about his country's government could get him put into a work camp (and who is a facebook user, like almost everyone we met in Burma).

brlewis 16y ago
Even your comment right there gives too much information. I think you should have withheld the person's line of work.

benohear 16y ago

That's especially true about humor. I can't remember the source, but "you can joke about anything, only not with everyone" rings true to me.

nicolasp 16y ago
French humorist Pierre Desproges originally made that comment ("On peut rire de tout, mais pas avec tout le monde").

tallanvor 16y ago

The lack of understanding Zuckerberg has about image is rather amazing. I think the fact that he has never had a real job - one where he could easily be fired for messing up, has a lot to do with this. You learn very quickly when you or someone else gets hell rained down upon them from a boss who decides they did or said something inappropriate - no matter what the context or meaning was. I know I've seen people get fired, or come close to it, for saying something that I never before would have given a second thought to, but I definitely did after that. So when it comes down to it, there is no way I'm going to risk my professional career by letting my Facebook identity be my public persona. Hell, I even have a rule against having family members friend me on Facebook. It's not about being a different person in each setting, it's about being able to act appropriately in each setting. --Being someone who is viewed as a dependable, professional expert at work, being able to have a serious discussion with my father about my mother's Alzheimer's at home, or being able to relax and let out my inner child a bit with friends. These are all parts of me, but there's a time and place for everything. Zuckerberg doesn't understand that.

PedroCandeias 16y ago
This. All this.
Duff 16y ago
I'm sure Zuckerberg gets this -- it is a pretty blatantly obvious concept. But addressing this technically is hard to do, and likely to be unsuccessful. Think about your own rules that you posted about. How is Facebook going to successfully deal with them? What happens when you decide that some friends get to see the "inner child" and some don't? There are probably ways to accomodate these things, but they are complicated, and 80% of the hundreds of millions of users will screw it up and blame Facebook. So Facebook deals with it by pushing it down to you and making your problems your problem. Don't want your boss to see the pictures of you doing body shots on Spring Break? Don't want your parents to know your sexual orientation? Fine -- don't post it on Facebook, or don't invite people to read it. It's not that Facebook doesn't get it -- they just choose not to get involved.
- 16y ago

credo 16y ago

I agree but would add that it is not just about context. imo a desire for privacy is not the same thing as a "lack of integrity".

bigiain 16y ago

An interesting contrast to Eric Schmidt's view while he was CEO of Google: "every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends' social media sites." Possibly apocryphal or taken out of context if HoPo is the best reference I can find: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-s_n_684031.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/google-ceo-eric-sch... (conspiracy theory: I _did_ search Google - unsuccessfully - to try and find authoritative sources for that quote...)

eneveu 16y ago

"It's not a lack of integrity - what people say and how people act is always based on the context it's in. There are things you'd say to your friends that you wouldn't say to your family or even other friends." Exactly. Some people say "Google does not get social", but this Google UX researcher, at least, got it: http://www.slideshare.net/padday/the-real-life-social-network-v2 http://www.slideshare.net/padday/the-real-life-social-networ... (discussion at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867807 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867807)

billybob 16y ago

Agreed. In fact, this is a big part of why I dislike Facebook: the public nature of conversation distorts it. I have wonderful, deep conversations with my wife. I also have deep conversations with my best friend. I love them both, and I'm not hiding anything from either one. But the intimacy and tone of either conversation would be ruined by the presence of the other person. This isn't about duplicity; it's about the nature of friendship. The sense of humor between us, the shared memories, the references we don't have to explain - those are all different. Public conversation like wall posts lacks all of that. It's not inimate; it's self-conscious. It inherently lacks depth because it's dumbed down to the lowest common denominator for everyone who will see it. It's more like performance art than real conversation. That's why I'll take email over wall posts any day. I want to hear what you have to say to ME, not what you want everyone else seeing you say to me. It's not about secrets, it's about real, personal contact.

stuartjmoore 16y ago

Bad start-up idea: a website that lets people control multiple Facebook accounts as if they're one account with different "friend contexts". Or, something that makes lists on Facebook useful.

Vivtek 16y ago
It's a good technical idea, bad start-up idea. Facebook would nuke it on sight.

pasbesoin 16y ago

Comments like these make me wonder to what extent Zuckerberg is a two-dimensional figurehead. Maybe not as incompetent as some of our politicians, but nonetheless now the focal point for a lot of significant activity that is, at the least, outside his domain of expertise. (How much of it is still him, and how much (to what extent) is he, at this point, simply along for the ride?)

toptiger 16y ago

"Two identities = lack of integrity" is the kind of simplistic statement most often used by fascists, racists and other small minds. Unfortunately, this approach is often very persuasive for those who don't stop to think about what it really means. Stop and look at some of the simple, dumb statements you see in a typical advertising or political campaign.