A case for full online exposure?

[guitarplayer]

Having a physical person behind an online presence cannot be taken for granted these days. This creates a problem to do with the fact that an anonymous poster can and increasingly will be screened one way or another to ensure they are a physical person.

Someone can think that a way forward is to withdraw even further from online platforms and engage more in the physical world instead. I think this is short sighted solution, if perhaps relatively easy.

There have been voices on this forum envisioning a screening similar to credit checks but to do with online platforms as we go forward. This is happening now for example with the verification services offered by major social networking platforms.

Into the future, as these checks become more prevalent, it seems to me that the sequence of changes in online civic sphere may rhyme with the sequence of changes to the civic sphere in the real world in the past. A case is then to meet it heads on with full immersion. This means signing stuff with ones name, setting up a personal website and profiles on social media and putting some effort to systematically maintain them, thus building a consistent signal that will outweigh the noise of actions such as someone trying to steal your identity, scammers, trolls and such. At the same time, have a robust password management system and do due diligence in not exposing yourself to obvious risks associated with online presence.

ETA: This is not a call for the forum members to disclose their identities or for them to need to be verified anyhow!

What do you think?

[ertyu]

One should keep a sanitized "fitter, happier, more productive..." [radiohead] - style social media profile anyway. Employers have started to screen employee social media profiles as part of their hiring decisions. Eg I have heard of employers thinking that being told that one isn't on facebook is a red flag, the assumption being that one is on facebook because everyone is on facebook, and if one doesn't submit oneself to a social media profile search, one must be hiding something.

I would argue that this forum in particular should not require real name verification. Being into early retirement in and of itself is seen as a red flag by many employers because they take it to mean that the employee is unmotivated, burnt out, and/or not excited by the traditional carrot and stick of the corporate world.

Obviously the extent to which this is relevant depends on country, field of work, company and company culture, etc. But as a rule of thumb, all authentic pursuits and hobbies should be anonymous until such a time as de-anoning is the rational choice (e.g. you have a book to sell and the forum you run is one marketing tool that helps you sell it). In either case, people are prejudiced about different things. Even if I were to retire, I would not want to deanon on this forum. While most keep a rational demeanor in discussion, some are prejudiced along various lines. Protecting myself from their prejudice is only rational.

[Jean]

i'm using my real name and not hiding infos because it's too much of a hasle and i don't feel comfortable actively hiding thing from potential business partners. Also, I don't wan't to miss the opportunity of someone thinking i'm the perfect fit for their project, and contacting me for it.

[loutfard]

My wife has a USSR birth certificate. There's plenty of modern equivalent and worse privacy invaders, whether public or private sector.

As long as the signal/noise ratio is good enough, I'd rather not go in the direction you suggest. The snr currently is more than ok. I thank the forum moderator(s) and the many respectful contributors for that.

[7Wannabe5]

Even in the olden days before the internet, civilized humans maintained varying degrees and forms of transparency/disclosure in different realms and situations. My practice in terms of belonging to an internet forum/salon/book-group-of-long-standing has been to remain anonymous online, but make reasonable effort to meet some other members of the group in person. However, for me part of my motivation for this practice is that I believe my writing voice is a bit kookier than my physical presence/manner which is more conventional and in alignment with YOUR MOM or SCHOOL LIBRARIAN and/or some other version of MOST HARMLESS HUMAN IMAGINABLE.

[jacob]

I don't really care if someone is a physical person or a dog (or an AI). However, I do care about the signal/noise ratio and as such I do screen for dogs, chatGPT-bots, spammers, and trolls.

I'm not sure connecting the online persona with a physical person helps. Youtube tried to eliminate the worst of their comment section by only letting people post under their real names presumably under the idea that they would have a sense of shame and self-regulate their behavior. It turned out that a lot of the shitposters didn't have a sense of shame anyway. Indeed, they likely act that way IRL too.

On the other hand having a solid internet presence does help to establish trust. If the only point of contact is a throwaway email address, that's a red flag. On the other hand, if someone has a well-developed website or an active profile somewhere, whether anonymous or not, that's more valuable that a stamp from some kind of check-mark service *cough* twitter *cough*

Basically, it comes down to trust. I don't really see how knowing someone's real name or address---this info used to be freely available in big publications called "phone books" for those old enough to remember---builds any kind of trust. There has to be more. For example, Myspace was mostly anonymous but people put a lot of effort into their profile and as such you could trust that you were talking to the person who had put effort into their profile rather than a throwaway account. Similarly, LinkedIn is apparently the one social media site with almost no idiot behavior. Again I think this is because people's behavior is associated with something they put a lot of effort into developing, namely their career. I can't really give the same high marks to facebook. The experience on Facebook really varies.

In summary, I don't think that associating an online profile with the physical person automatically de-uglifies ugly behavior. Instead, screen for those who have a proven record of good online behavior regardless of whether they're a dog in real life.

[Henry]

Into the future, as these checks become more prevalent, it seems to me that the sequence of changes in online civic sphere may rhyme with the sequence of changes to the civic sphere in the real world in the past. A case is then to meet it heads on with full immersion. This means signing stuff with ones name, setting up a personal website and profiles on social media and putting some effort to systematically maintain them, thus building a consistent signal that will outweigh the noise of actions such as someone trying to steal your identity, scammers, trolls and such. At the same time, have a robust password management system and do due diligence in not exposing yourself to obvious risks associated with online presence.

What do you think?

I think the Federalist Papers, possibly the most important documents ever written to interpret the US Constitution were written anonymously. I think you can also make the case that Benjamin Franklin trolled the colonies into the Revolutionary war.

Grifting, scamming, cat fishing, trolling, anonymous shit talking pre-dated Al Gore.

[jacob]

To add: I actually think dissociating the physical person from the online person(a) is a feature rather than a bug. Online, you're judged by your behavior, your contributions, and your insight. This is a welcome reprieve from the physical world where you're more likely to be judged by your age, gender, job title, education, tribe, or display of bling.

[macg]

Someone can think that a way forward is to withdraw even further from online platforms and engage more in the physical world instead. I think this is short sighted solution, if perhaps relatively easy.

I'm curious why you think this is a short-sighted solution?

I personally have zero desire to participate in any of the current social media platforms. Perhaps it's just me, but there are far more negative things about them than positive.

I should note that I don't consider this forum a social media platform lol.

I did like myspace, to be honest. I am not sure if that was because of the customizations you were able to do, or maybe because the negativity that is prevalent nowadays online wasn't quite to that level back then.

[CS]

I liked MySpace too. Seemed to meet more cool people than any other place since. I don't know how either... we all seemed to stumble upon one another.

The blinged out (in the effort, not the money sense) profile probably did a lot of the sorting.

[guitarplayer]

Thanks all for the thought, I appreciate the input.

@ertyu, so I wondered if what is (though perhaps marginally) happening in the 'work' section of life that you are describing could be happening in other parts of life. Also, linking to @Jean's comment but expanding from 'business partners' to people who would like to engage in other pursuits. This is me just thinking rather loosely about it - there might be no point to it.

@loutfard, I too was born in a 'people's republic of' which is close enough. I appreciate there might be a lot of online landscape that is still very wild in terms described by you.

@7w5, @jacob, @Henry, what you write is helpful for me in seeing relationship between physical past and online presence, thanks. Worth thinking about the matter in terms of 'creating under a pen name' and in terms of narrative psychology where different narratives are deliberately dissociated almost in a contingency planning sort of way, modular design. Dissociated, but ideally nevertheless congruent (I am using 'congruent' in Carl Rogers' sense) since not being congruent is pricey and pointless.

So there is a finer distinction I read you making here compared to the crude claim from the OP.

I remember phone books, also phones with a rotary dial.

@jacob, @macg, @CS, sadly I have not had experience with MySpace, looks like I missed out on something good!

@macg, I don't participate in any of the current social media platforms either. Short-sighted as it seems that in general humans will be increasingly online. Thought this might be false, too.

[OutOfTheBlue]

This thread reminds me of a text by "Tiqqun", translated from French as "The Cybernetic Hypothesis". You can find it in both languages online or I can send to anyone interested.

Achieving that level of transparency, where everybody would be bound to wear their traceable face/identity, with no cloak whatsoever, where every communication and transaction would occur in the monitored open would've been a cybernetician's wet dream. And conversely, a dystopian nightmare for those against such a cybernetic version of the panopticon.

The booklet would make for a good read for those interested in reading a critique of cybernetics, or systems theory taken to its logical extreme and applied to the wider political/civic arena.

A quote by Edward Snowden also comes to mind:

Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

[Henry]

Achieving that level of transparency, where everybody would be bound to wear their traceable face/identity, with no cloak whatsoever, where every communication and transaction would occur in the monitored open would've been a cybernetician's wet dream. And conversely, a dystopian nightmare for those against such a cybernetic version of the panopticon.

I don't think any group is immune from sort of social credit system developing and besides, transparency does not eliminate ubiquitous speech issues. But from a practical perspective an on-line group where anti-doxxing rules are unnecessary is DOA before you even begin to debate the more philosophical implications.