7 ms·

Identity and the web: what Moot overlooked

38 points by neoveller 15y ago

daeken 15y ago
This is really quite interesting, but only from a social sciences perspective. Here's where social sciences and real socialization differ: the plural of anecdote is data in the real world. Here's a great example: "He asserts that being restricted to a real name (G+ no longer does this) rather than anonymity or a pseudonym is incorrect, because it restricts what we do and share. Is he wrong? Yes, absolutely." How many gay teens are posting on LGBT support and community sites using pseudonyms because they don't want to publicly out themselves? How many people are posting about breaking DRM anonymously or under pseudonyms to get around draconian laws? These directly fly in the face of the assertion that requiring your discussions and actions to be tied to your real name doesn't impact what you say or do. There's value in real-life identities, but that does not in any way diminish the value of anonymity and pseudonymity.
- neoveller 15y ago
  For that case, I agree with you. Where I refute Moot is where he calls the model of reality-reflected identity on Facebook incorrect, which comes off as essentialist. Imagine if Facebook at the start tells you to choose any name of your liking. On a social network, how effective would the content that you'd rather post under a pseudonym be? The idea is that without Facebook, the share-ability of such content would be diminished. So my argument, admittedly unclear in the post, is that pseudonymity and anonymity actually derive their audience from the effects of rigidly reflected identities--but if you throw out the strictness that Facebook imposes entirely, on Facebook in particular, your audience size dries up considerably. People feel comfortable SHARING from a point of forced identity, but their will to EXPRESS themselves is most manifest in anonymity and pseudonymity. Expression without an audience is almost meaningless. It's a foundational issue.
  - sophacles 15y ago
    Reddit seems to be doing pretty well... and they grow every day. "Sure" I hear you say, "they are a pittance compared to facebook", but really, what out there isn't. And Reddit, unlike Facebook for most of it's existence, has had serious competition. (I don't consider MySpace to be FB competition, since really the migration to FB began pretty much as soon as FB opened up to full public consumption). Just a data point in the other direction.
    - neoveller 15y ago
      I mention Reddit and in the post. I remark that it has to do with autobiographical memory, which is a very postmodern force. But it would have a hard time gaining a userbase if something like Facebook and Myspace had never existed. The latter bring the userbase to the Internet in the first place, where Reddit is a secondary outcome that could not have possibly gained its userbase without the effects of a social network (aka people posting reddit links on Facebook).
      - ShirtlessRod 15y ago
        The web existed prior to Facebook. You seem to be arguing that Facebook's very existence is the reason that other sites on the web can even exist, which seems to fly in the face of the history of the web.
        neoveller 15y ago
        I am indeed arguing that Facebook's very existence and the effect it had, insofar as it greased the wheel of Internet use, is a huge part of why Reddit can exist at the scale it does. Reddit is a better-organized web forum, which are not new, and maybe by its own design merit does it succeed. This, I do not argue with. But I do not think it could exist at its current or anywhere-near-comparable scale and level of success without the social network effect.
        freshhawk 15y ago
        Unfortunately your theory is silly and doesn't line up with the demographic studies that have been done. No doubt you could find some interesting examples or some specific subgroups (my guess: the farmville playing middle aged mother on facebook with little technical aptitude, which is not an insignificant demographic) that have been pulled onto the net by facebook. The numbers just don't show the kind of massive effect that you seem to be promoting here. It's hard to overestimate facebook's effect, it's a giant. But by saying that it's pulling up the entire rest of the internet you actually managed to do it. What on earth is this theory based on?
rwolf 15y ago
I had trouble following the train of thought in this article; it may be too "stream of consciousness" for this particular audience. While this may be a problem between my keyboard and chair, I do not generally find HN articles hard to follow.
naner 15y ago
Jesus man, I'm very interested in this topic yet I still had a terrible time working through that brain dump. Superfluous acronyms, overly verbose, excerpts from (egads!) your undergrad papers! What the hell, man. Are you trying to appear smart for your professor or are you trying to persuade nerds with ADD? It can't be both.
- neoveller 15y ago
  Sorry, naner. When I try to be precise about things and not essentialize, it does require some amount of padding with jargon (pertaining to specificity) which would otherwise be taken as bullshit-like if not read by the fielded eye. What I try to do is stay away from generalizing and making indefensible claims. Next time, I'll stick with graphs, which is how I formulate my ideas and relate different social forces in the first place. To be dry: I wanted to be as accurate as possible, but it clouded all meaning.
- petegrif 15y ago
  Yeah. Me too. I found it painful to read.
teyc 15y ago
Both Moot and the author are correct. It is well accepted that anonymity brings out the worst in people (the author has said so himself). It is also understood that context guides behaviours. For example, one might be more disinhibited on a tropical holiday. Another example is footballers behaving badly on tours. Another one is the unbelievable atrocities soldiers commit away from their home "context". Moot's thesis is that people become interesting when you provide them a different context, while the author is saying that it is far healthier to have one well integrated identity.
- neoveller 15y ago
  To connect the dots here: I think both Moot and I employ a sort of essentialist rhetoric to get attention, the same way you would write something enormously more controversial under a pen name. A more strict interpretation of Moot's argument is that Facebook should be filled with pen names, as people need to be creative instead of simply informative, and that rigidity kills creativity. A strict interpretation of my argument is just as you said, but also that the well integrated identity comes before anonymity before anonymity may become useful / audienced. Moot's simple championing of anonymity misses the point that you need an audience first, which is gathered by putting people in a position where they can willingly be exposed to its content. It's the same as why farmville isn't 100% evil: it brings people to the web who otherwise would never be there, and acts as a positive externality on all other web sub-industries.
prodigal_erik 15y ago
> [Autobiographical memory] might be boosted by anonymity and pseudonyms, as a way to pull down barriers to risky behavior, but anonymity and pseudonyms do much less for aggregate [utility per person] than postmodern, perceivably rigid reflections of reality on Facebook do. There's a lot here about self-gratification through performative identity, but nothing about the value society derives from the unflinching evaluation of unpopular ideas. I find this to be nearly absent in "this will go on your permanent record" oriented venues, which in turn is why I find those all but useless. It's reception and counters to my arguments that I value; what I write would be anonymous (and on slashdot it was) if a dissociated pseudonym weren't required.
Causification 15y ago
I am amazed that someone would write so much so thoroughly yet completely miss the point that some people don't give a damn about UPP or identity. Want to know what my reputation is? Too bad, it doesn't exist. Excepting the handful of close, personal friends, everyone who communicates with me is forced to judge me based purely on the merits of what I am saying, and not any sort of accumulated respect. That's exactly the way I like it, because it's honest. If I say something stupid, I want people to say it's stupid. If I say something intelligent, I want them to say it's intelligent. The concept that I would be dishonest or hold my tongue instead of saying exactly what I thought for fear of what the listener would think of me is little better than lying to their face. The world would be a healthier place if everyone was called out on their stupidity, every time, by everyone there. Anonymity enables honesty. Rigid identities are for people who are afraid of what they might hear if there was nothing protecting them from the truth of other peoples' thoughts. Do you think this comment is the most ignorant, idiotic thing you've read today? Then tell me so, without being influenced by who I am, or dissuaded by anything I might do or think in the future. I welcome your honest opinion, for I know it is based purely on what I have said.
- neoveller 15y ago
  I don't think you are wrong in your overall point. My post was an analysis of the social evolution of self-expression. That was its direction. Your points relate to the actual utility of having no identity. The merits of your points (while anonymous) exist, but I would argue that they could not exist if not for the experiences derived under a rigid identity, perhaps not even without the experiences derived from having an identity on the web anywhere. How do you know that you care about identity or UPP or not if you did not experience both the "have" and "have not" have not at some point? Your opinion comes out of the in-between, and knowing both ways. Edit: upvote for your throwaway, new account to prove your point. I imagine it would not have preceded a real account that you care about.
  - Causification 15y ago
    I think you wrote an article that kind of ignored the real point of controversy, which is whether UPP is actually valuable. Does having a rigid identity tend to magnify the reactions of people to the things you do an say? Yes, absolutely. Your article almost wholly pertains to arguing that it does, but that's not what people would disagree with you about. They would disagree on whether UPP is desirable at all. As far as I can tell from your definition of UPP, it's little more than an accumulated distortion of logical merit based on superficial characteristics. The distortion may be to your material advantage, but I still do not see why it is desirable. Edit: I don't actually have a "real" account. HN may not support anonymity, but signing up and posting doesn't require email confirmation, so I make a new account about every other article I choose to post a comment on.
neoveller 15y ago
After reading and responding to the comments, I want to add an overall, more clear message: The argument is that without rigid identity on the web, anonymity and pen names could not really take off and receive audience. Many individuals' first encounter with the Internet and any web communities is with Facebook, and this is because these people would not feel comfortable starting out on a place like Reddit for 4chan. For this reason, rigid identity is a necessary foundation for the usefulness of pen names and anonymity. Moot's argument that pen names are the way to go is flawed insofar as it undermines the "necessary evil" of rigid identity, which is a natural, socially evolved stepping stone for anonymity's value. Without people going online and possessing monuments to themselves (facebook profiles) in a way they feel comfortable and secure in, anything posted online (including content under pen names) is in aggregate less valuable. Rigid identity is a necessary characteristic of social media content which can result in inexperienced web users taking the plunge to explore the rest of the less-rigid web.
- adbge 15y ago
  Anonymous communities existed before rigid identity on the web. Those anonymous communities clearly provided some kind of value to their members and, thusly, must be considered useful. How, then, can you argue that rigid identity is a necessary foundation for the usefulness of pen names and anonymity? Further, I find your claim that men didn't have an identity prior to the advent of leisure time, frankly, extraordinary and, as such, the claim requires extraordinary evidence. Can you provide such evidence? Hell, even the argument that nomads don't engage in leisure time seems dubious. Wild animals have leisure time.
  - neoveller 15y ago
    Something on the web has more value when it is viewed by more individuals than otherwise, correct? Early anonymous communities did provide some kind of value to their members, but they comparatively provide more value today when more individuals are present. The problem when talking about social science is that everything is relational/relative. Rigid identity is necessary as a foundation for the MASSIVE (modern-day scale) usefulness of pen names and anonymity. It is not necessary for the smaller audience, but for the larger one which is online and present which we take for granted, it is necessary. Wild animals are often always looking for food. The claim of no-identity-before-statehood is, as stated, very, very relative, and I even wrote that this contrasts with identity as we know it today. The point is that identity did not matter when nobody had anything to do with themselves through it. Aristocrats, as written, are the exception due to their privilege of free time and surplus. The identity of a man who does one thing out of survival necessity is orders of magnitude less complex than the identity of a man who does several things and prides himself on all of them, and continuously has the option of re-defining himself. Moreover, I have to admit that the assumption of no identity before the Industrial Revolution is something I studied in the entirety of two social geography courses dealing with how context defines the modern imaginary (as everything is only imagined with us).
droithomme 15y ago
Gosh that was a longwinded technical article. All this talk about real identity on the web is a cover for the only real issue. Corporations can track, market to, and monetize what they learn about you more effectively with real id policies for internet use. Governments can track, monitor and control you more effectively with real id policies for internet use. The end.
tlholaday 15y ago
Why is he capitalizing moot's name? Is it just to be rude?
- neoveller 15y ago
  I did not mention the name Christopher Poole anywhere. Capitalizing on his pen name was within his argument's wishes.
  - wnoise 15y ago
    Capitalizing, not capitalizing on. As in spelling with a capital M, rather than a lower case m.
rhizome 15y ago
Key points: Identity refers to how we reference ourselves, primarily in relation to relationships, experiences, and possessions. What is your basis for this assertion?
- neoveller 15y ago
  Identity comes from the concept of identification/classification. These are notions which evolved with modernism in Western society, or the ability to measure things exactly for the sake of predicting and knowing. There is no exact meaning for identity due to its elusive nature, as its meaning belongs to the fluid individual. My post presumes the definition, and yes, that makes it just an assertion.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Well, your entire paper hinges on a definition of identity that is completely internal, yet your measurements are external.

38 points by neoveller 15y ago

This is really quite interesting, but only from a social sciences perspective. Here's where social sciences and real socialization differ: the plural of anecdote is data in the real world. Here's a great example: "He asserts that being restricted to a real name (G+ no longer does this) rather than anonymity or a pseudonym is incorrect, because it restricts what we do and share. Is he wrong? Yes, absolutely." How many gay teens are posting on LGBT support and community sites using pseudonyms because they don't want to publicly out themselves? How many people are posting about breaking DRM anonymously or under pseudonyms to get around draconian laws? These directly fly in the face of the assertion that requiring your discussions and actions to be tied to your real name doesn't impact what you say or do. There's value in real-life identities, but that does not in any way diminish the value of anonymity and pseudonymity.

neoveller 15y ago
For that case, I agree with you. Where I refute Moot is where he calls the model of reality-reflected identity on Facebook incorrect, which comes off as essentialist. Imagine if Facebook at the start tells you to choose any name of your liking. On a social network, how effective would the content that you'd rather post under a pseudonym be? The idea is that without Facebook, the share-ability of such content would be diminished. So my argument, admittedly unclear in the post, is that pseudonymity and anonymity actually derive their audience from the effects of rigidly reflected identities--but if you throw out the strictness that Facebook imposes entirely, on Facebook in particular, your audience size dries up considerably. People feel comfortable SHARING from a point of forced identity, but their will to EXPRESS themselves is most manifest in anonymity and pseudonymity. Expression without an audience is almost meaningless. It's a foundational issue.
- sophacles 15y ago
  Reddit seems to be doing pretty well... and they grow every day. "Sure" I hear you say, "they are a pittance compared to facebook", but really, what out there isn't. And Reddit, unlike Facebook for most of it's existence, has had serious competition. (I don't consider MySpace to be FB competition, since really the migration to FB began pretty much as soon as FB opened up to full public consumption). Just a data point in the other direction.
  - neoveller 15y ago
    I mention Reddit and in the post. I remark that it has to do with autobiographical memory, which is a very postmodern force. But it would have a hard time gaining a userbase if something like Facebook and Myspace had never existed. The latter bring the userbase to the Internet in the first place, where Reddit is a secondary outcome that could not have possibly gained its userbase without the effects of a social network (aka people posting reddit links on Facebook).
    - ShirtlessRod 15y ago
      The web existed prior to Facebook. You seem to be arguing that Facebook's very existence is the reason that other sites on the web can even exist, which seems to fly in the face of the history of the web.
      - neoveller 15y ago
        I am indeed arguing that Facebook's very existence and the effect it had, insofar as it greased the wheel of Internet use, is a huge part of why Reddit can exist at the scale it does. Reddit is a better-organized web forum, which are not new, and maybe by its own design merit does it succeed. This, I do not argue with. But I do not think it could exist at its current or anywhere-near-comparable scale and level of success without the social network effect.
        freshhawk 15y ago
        Unfortunately your theory is silly and doesn't line up with the demographic studies that have been done. No doubt you could find some interesting examples or some specific subgroups (my guess: the farmville playing middle aged mother on facebook with little technical aptitude, which is not an insignificant demographic) that have been pulled onto the net by facebook. The numbers just don't show the kind of massive effect that you seem to be promoting here. It's hard to overestimate facebook's effect, it's a giant. But by saying that it's pulling up the entire rest of the internet you actually managed to do it. What on earth is this theory based on?

rwolf 15y ago

I had trouble following the train of thought in this article; it may be too "stream of consciousness" for this particular audience. While this may be a problem between my keyboard and chair, I do not generally find HN articles hard to follow.

naner 15y ago

Jesus man, I'm very interested in this topic yet I still had a terrible time working through that brain dump. Superfluous acronyms, overly verbose, excerpts from (egads!) your undergrad papers! What the hell, man. Are you trying to appear smart for your professor or are you trying to persuade nerds with ADD? It can't be both.

neoveller 15y ago
Sorry, naner. When I try to be precise about things and not essentialize, it does require some amount of padding with jargon (pertaining to specificity) which would otherwise be taken as bullshit-like if not read by the fielded eye. What I try to do is stay away from generalizing and making indefensible claims. Next time, I'll stick with graphs, which is how I formulate my ideas and relate different social forces in the first place. To be dry: I wanted to be as accurate as possible, but it clouded all meaning.
petegrif 15y ago
Yeah. Me too. I found it painful to read.

teyc 15y ago

Both Moot and the author are correct. It is well accepted that anonymity brings out the worst in people (the author has said so himself). It is also understood that context guides behaviours. For example, one might be more disinhibited on a tropical holiday. Another example is footballers behaving badly on tours. Another one is the unbelievable atrocities soldiers commit away from their home "context". Moot's thesis is that people become interesting when you provide them a different context, while the author is saying that it is far healthier to have one well integrated identity.

neoveller 15y ago
To connect the dots here: I think both Moot and I employ a sort of essentialist rhetoric to get attention, the same way you would write something enormously more controversial under a pen name. A more strict interpretation of Moot's argument is that Facebook should be filled with pen names, as people need to be creative instead of simply informative, and that rigidity kills creativity. A strict interpretation of my argument is just as you said, but also that the well integrated identity comes before anonymity before anonymity may become useful / audienced. Moot's simple championing of anonymity misses the point that you need an audience first, which is gathered by putting people in a position where they can willingly be exposed to its content. It's the same as why farmville isn't 100% evil: it brings people to the web who otherwise would never be there, and acts as a positive externality on all other web sub-industries.

prodigal_erik 15y ago

> [Autobiographical memory] might be boosted by anonymity and pseudonyms, as a way to pull down barriers to risky behavior, but anonymity and pseudonyms do much less for aggregate [utility per person] than postmodern, perceivably rigid reflections of reality on Facebook do. There's a lot here about self-gratification through performative identity, but nothing about the value society derives from the unflinching evaluation of unpopular ideas. I find this to be nearly absent in "this will go on your permanent record" oriented venues, which in turn is why I find those all but useless. It's reception and counters to my arguments that I value; what I write would be anonymous (and on slashdot it was) if a dissociated pseudonym weren't required.

Causification 15y ago

I am amazed that someone would write so much so thoroughly yet completely miss the point that some people don't give a damn about UPP or identity. Want to know what my reputation is? Too bad, it doesn't exist. Excepting the handful of close, personal friends, everyone who communicates with me is forced to judge me based purely on the merits of what I am saying, and not any sort of accumulated respect. That's exactly the way I like it, because it's honest. If I say something stupid, I want people to say it's stupid. If I say something intelligent, I want them to say it's intelligent. The concept that I would be dishonest or hold my tongue instead of saying exactly what I thought for fear of what the listener would think of me is little better than lying to their face. The world would be a healthier place if everyone was called out on their stupidity, every time, by everyone there. Anonymity enables honesty. Rigid identities are for people who are afraid of what they might hear if there was nothing protecting them from the truth of other peoples' thoughts. Do you think this comment is the most ignorant, idiotic thing you've read today? Then tell me so, without being influenced by who I am, or dissuaded by anything I might do or think in the future. I welcome your honest opinion, for I know it is based purely on what I have said.

neoveller 15y ago
I don't think you are wrong in your overall point. My post was an analysis of the social evolution of self-expression. That was its direction. Your points relate to the actual utility of having no identity. The merits of your points (while anonymous) exist, but I would argue that they could not exist if not for the experiences derived under a rigid identity, perhaps not even without the experiences derived from having an identity on the web anywhere. How do you know that you care about identity or UPP or not if you did not experience both the "have" and "have not" have not at some point? Your opinion comes out of the in-between, and knowing both ways. Edit: upvote for your throwaway, new account to prove your point. I imagine it would not have preceded a real account that you care about.
- Causification 15y ago
  I think you wrote an article that kind of ignored the real point of controversy, which is whether UPP is actually valuable. Does having a rigid identity tend to magnify the reactions of people to the things you do an say? Yes, absolutely. Your article almost wholly pertains to arguing that it does, but that's not what people would disagree with you about. They would disagree on whether UPP is desirable at all. As far as I can tell from your definition of UPP, it's little more than an accumulated distortion of logical merit based on superficial characteristics. The distortion may be to your material advantage, but I still do not see why it is desirable. Edit: I don't actually have a "real" account. HN may not support anonymity, but signing up and posting doesn't require email confirmation, so I make a new account about every other article I choose to post a comment on.

neoveller 15y ago

After reading and responding to the comments, I want to add an overall, more clear message: The argument is that without rigid identity on the web, anonymity and pen names could not really take off and receive audience. Many individuals' first encounter with the Internet and any web communities is with Facebook, and this is because these people would not feel comfortable starting out on a place like Reddit for 4chan. For this reason, rigid identity is a necessary foundation for the usefulness of pen names and anonymity. Moot's argument that pen names are the way to go is flawed insofar as it undermines the "necessary evil" of rigid identity, which is a natural, socially evolved stepping stone for anonymity's value. Without people going online and possessing monuments to themselves (facebook profiles) in a way they feel comfortable and secure in, anything posted online (including content under pen names) is in aggregate less valuable. Rigid identity is a necessary characteristic of social media content which can result in inexperienced web users taking the plunge to explore the rest of the less-rigid web.

adbge 15y ago
Anonymous communities existed before rigid identity on the web. Those anonymous communities clearly provided some kind of value to their members and, thusly, must be considered useful. How, then, can you argue that rigid identity is a necessary foundation for the usefulness of pen names and anonymity? Further, I find your claim that men didn't have an identity prior to the advent of leisure time, frankly, extraordinary and, as such, the claim requires extraordinary evidence. Can you provide such evidence? Hell, even the argument that nomads don't engage in leisure time seems dubious. Wild animals have leisure time.
- neoveller 15y ago
  Something on the web has more value when it is viewed by more individuals than otherwise, correct? Early anonymous communities did provide some kind of value to their members, but they comparatively provide more value today when more individuals are present. The problem when talking about social science is that everything is relational/relative. Rigid identity is necessary as a foundation for the MASSIVE (modern-day scale) usefulness of pen names and anonymity. It is not necessary for the smaller audience, but for the larger one which is online and present which we take for granted, it is necessary. Wild animals are often always looking for food. The claim of no-identity-before-statehood is, as stated, very, very relative, and I even wrote that this contrasts with identity as we know it today. The point is that identity did not matter when nobody had anything to do with themselves through it. Aristocrats, as written, are the exception due to their privilege of free time and surplus. The identity of a man who does one thing out of survival necessity is orders of magnitude less complex than the identity of a man who does several things and prides himself on all of them, and continuously has the option of re-defining himself. Moreover, I have to admit that the assumption of no identity before the Industrial Revolution is something I studied in the entirety of two social geography courses dealing with how context defines the modern imaginary (as everything is only imagined with us).

droithomme 15y ago

Gosh that was a longwinded technical article. All this talk about real identity on the web is a cover for the only real issue. Corporations can track, market to, and monetize what they learn about you more effectively with real id policies for internet use. Governments can track, monitor and control you more effectively with real id policies for internet use. The end.

tlholaday 15y ago

Why is he capitalizing moot's name? Is it just to be rude?

neoveller 15y ago
I did not mention the name Christopher Poole anywhere. Capitalizing on his pen name was within his argument's wishes.
- wnoise 15y ago
  Capitalizing, not capitalizing on. As in spelling with a capital M, rather than a lower case m.

rhizome 15y ago

Key points: Identity refers to how we reference ourselves, primarily in relation to relationships, experiences, and possessions. What is your basis for this assertion?

neoveller 15y ago
Identity comes from the concept of identification/classification. These are notions which evolved with modernism in Western society, or the ability to measure things exactly for the sake of predicting and knowing. There is no exact meaning for identity due to its elusive nature, as its meaning belongs to the fluid individual. My post presumes the definition, and yes, that makes it just an assertion.
- rhizome 15y ago
  Well, your entire paper hinges on a definition of identity that is completely internal, yet your measurements are external.