Danah Boyd’s article "'Real Name' Polices Are an Abuse of Power" points to the issue of pseudonymity and its conflation with anarchic anonymity, where those without boundaries (i.e. social stigma associated with one’s public persona) will turn to frothing at the mouth and laying waste to common decency. What Boyd counters with, and with which I very much agree, is that pseudonyms allow for people to hide, and ultimately counter, those very attacks of the frothing masses, which Facebook has proven time and time again are not afraid to use their real names. I think Google, and especially Google+, are founded on the idea of consumer interactivity, where ads can be targeted to a person’s name and interests. And because it exists under its own Terms of Service (free of pseudonym-friendly Google tech like Gmail or Youtube), they are free to do such a thing, though it might hurt their PR in the wake of Facebook’s acceptance of nicknames.
The anti-bullying stance cannot be ignored in this conversation, and important in weeding out potential victims versus aggressors under their own pseudonyms. Rather than laying blanket statements on the needs and intents of a social media site’s population (looking at you, Randi), the communication between user and producer needs to become stronger, so that they understand why we want to use pseudonyms, and we can let them know when pseudonyms are being abused. Is Google, as a singular entity, not a pseudonym for the abusive power of its creators and other faceless organizations ready to gain from this policy? Does this not force us to be consumers and not just people? What might happen if they started treating us like people-- yes, even the ones named "timidboy12"?
What Google might consider doing, especially with its innovative design, is to create a function where one can privately arrange and identify under one gmail account the various pseudonyms he or she goes by to different groups. The discourse might revolve around what Google can know about you regardless of what is posted publicly, but it might be the start of a new phase in outsourced communication, where one can more easily float between personalities without the psychological break between sites and selves. In this way, Google+ might create a new valid way of sharing and assimilating identities unmatched in other social media markets, and a step in creating an overlap between these personalities when an individual is ready to do so.
I agree with your suggestion. I think that allowing users to use pseudonyms is important to sort of traditional internet behaviors. It allows people to participate without their offline identity attached. While your idea of a function where you can privately choose how you identify in different situations isn't as free as being whoever you want wherever you want I think that it is a healthy alternative. Obviously as the internet changes sites like google are going to make certain requirements to use their services, I think the way they can be most successful in this is to find a way to fit existing online etiquette into their user experience rather than reinventing it.
ReplyDelete