3 ms·

When I started blogging I made a conscious decision to make everything public and put everything in one place. You go to my blog and you see my opinions about

by sethg 17y ago

When I started blogging I made a conscious decision to make everything public and put everything in one place. You go to my blog and you see my opinions about computer programming, Judaism, economics, sex, whatever. I wonder if my descendants will consider this kind of behavior quaint if not dangerously naïve. Of course, they might say (might will say?), you maintain multiple online identities and even if everything posted under them is publically readable, you give one URL to the guy interviewing you, and then a different one to the officemate who has become your friend, and maybe you keep your really emotionally sticky stuff on a third site that only two or three people know is connected to your true identity. And it would be an extreme social gaffe--a sort of electronic peeping-tom-ism--for anyone to reveal "the guy who posts here also writes this blog" to an unauthorized party.

chadgeidel 17y ago
On the contrary - you are now actively aware of and can manage your online "persona." (I do this to an extent, but I'm not very prolific). I think too many people think: "I'm going to post this on the Internet and then hide it." Sorry, folks, if it's on the Internet there's a pretty good chance you won't be able to control it.
samlittlewood 17y ago
Stay that way, unless you are prepared to go to extremes to maintain separate identities (physical, temporal, financial). Anything casual will crumble under pressure, so it's best not to have the false sense of security.
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  Anything casual will crumble under pressure... This is true, but it misses the point. Keeping your online identities separate isn't a security measure. (And when it is -- when you're a political dissident facing imprisonment or torture -- it's very very risky.) You maintain separate identities because it sends a social signal. The signal is "I recognize the distinction between professional and casual behavior; between public and private behavior; between an artistic pose and heartfelt sincerity. I understand basic social and literary conventions and I know how to use them." A classic example: Fake Steve Jobs, who I think is a pretty good model of proper literary behavior. Daniel Lyons wanted to have some fun, so he concocted a persona and started a blog under that persona's name. The persona's voice is distinct from that of Daniel Lyons, the journalist (which is why so many people say things like "man, he was so good as Fake Steve; why are his Newsweek articles so uninspiring?"), which in turn is almost certainly distinct from Mr. Lyons the person, Mr. Lyons the family member, and Mr. Lyons the party animal. But Lyons obeys the conventions. He doesn't just type everything that comes into his head into one blog. Obviously you should expect your prospective employers to Google you and read your public writing, particularly that which might pertain to your field. (I told my new employer all about my writing on HN, for example.) But just as it is your responsibility to observe proper social and literary convention, it is also your employer's responsibility: Just because it's easy to riffle through Facebook and MySpace (the online equivalent of following your prospective employee around at night, peeking into his or her windows) doesn't mean that employers are ethical when they do so. But Google makes window-peering so easy that it's sometimes hard to avoid. So: Pseudonyms, my friend, pseudonyms. Not to mention Pepys' brilliant invention: the posthumous diary. (I sometimes wonder if I should start a web service for writing posthumously-published blog posts. But it's kind of the anti-viable online business: It has negative word of mouth (your customers would prefer that their friends and family don't know about it), and the writers have pretty poor interaction with the audience, and nobody will ever have enough faith in your privacy policy or performance warranty.)
  - samlittlewood 17y ago
    Fair call - I had various friends and acquaintances in mind who use separate identities to behave in ways that would have unwanted repercussions if those identities were ever reunited. Some examples are moonlighting, sock puppetry, and whistle blowing. One thing about pseudonyms - it is in your audience's interest to maintain the ruse as they benifit from it's existence. PS: Posthumous diary service - if someone can create a trusted service that provides timed key release - so many services can be hung from it.
philwelch 17y ago
I hope not. Our descendants should hopefully live in a world where everyone recognizes that we are all human beings. I don't think it will ever be prudent to say What You Can't Say publicly, but a little bit of humanity will be allowed.

by sethg 17y ago

chadgeidel 17y ago

On the contrary - you are now actively aware of and can manage your online "persona." (I do this to an extent, but I'm not very prolific). I think too many people think: "I'm going to post this on the Internet and then hide it." Sorry, folks, if it's on the Internet there's a pretty good chance you won't be able to control it.

samlittlewood 17y ago

Stay that way, unless you are prepared to go to extremes to maintain separate identities (physical, temporal, financial). Anything casual will crumble under pressure, so it's best not to have the false sense of security.

mechanical_fish 17y ago
Anything casual will crumble under pressure... This is true, but it misses the point. Keeping your online identities separate isn't a security measure. (And when it is -- when you're a political dissident facing imprisonment or torture -- it's very very risky.) You maintain separate identities because it sends a social signal. The signal is "I recognize the distinction between professional and casual behavior; between public and private behavior; between an artistic pose and heartfelt sincerity. I understand basic social and literary conventions and I know how to use them." A classic example: Fake Steve Jobs, who I think is a pretty good model of proper literary behavior. Daniel Lyons wanted to have some fun, so he concocted a persona and started a blog under that persona's name. The persona's voice is distinct from that of Daniel Lyons, the journalist (which is why so many people say things like "man, he was so good as Fake Steve; why are his Newsweek articles so uninspiring?"), which in turn is almost certainly distinct from Mr. Lyons the person, Mr. Lyons the family member, and Mr. Lyons the party animal. But Lyons obeys the conventions. He doesn't just type everything that comes into his head into one blog. Obviously you should expect your prospective employers to Google you and read your public writing, particularly that which might pertain to your field. (I told my new employer all about my writing on HN, for example.) But just as it is your responsibility to observe proper social and literary convention, it is also your employer's responsibility: Just because it's easy to riffle through Facebook and MySpace (the online equivalent of following your prospective employee around at night, peeking into his or her windows) doesn't mean that employers are ethical when they do so. But Google makes window-peering so easy that it's sometimes hard to avoid. So: Pseudonyms, my friend, pseudonyms. Not to mention Pepys' brilliant invention: the posthumous diary. (I sometimes wonder if I should start a web service for writing posthumously-published blog posts. But it's kind of the anti-viable online business: It has negative word of mouth (your customers would prefer that their friends and family don't know about it), and the writers have pretty poor interaction with the audience, and nobody will ever have enough faith in your privacy policy or performance warranty.)
- samlittlewood 17y ago
  Fair call - I had various friends and acquaintances in mind who use separate identities to behave in ways that would have unwanted repercussions if those identities were ever reunited. Some examples are moonlighting, sock puppetry, and whistle blowing. One thing about pseudonyms - it is in your audience's interest to maintain the ruse as they benifit from it's existence. PS: Posthumous diary service - if someone can create a trusted service that provides timed key release - so many services can be hung from it.

philwelch 17y ago

I hope not. Our descendants should hopefully live in a world where everyone recognizes that we are all human beings. I don't think it will ever be prudent to say What You Can't Say publicly, but a little bit of humanity will be allowed.