7 ms·

This is really quite interesting, but only from a social sciences perspective. Here's where social sciences and real socialization differ: the plural of anecdo

by 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?

by daeken 15y ago

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?