Apparently Facebook doesn’t like Tobold. Google+ probably doesn’t like him either. Zuckerberg thinks it has to do with integrity. I say it’s about revenue, and “integrity” is just a pretty facade to hide behind. It’s harder to monetize a handle (yes, I wrote about this before, just in a different setting).
In a world where we still judge someone by what they look like instead of what they do, and where appeals to authority are more persuasive than logic, and prejudice fuels hate crimes, face value is a… flexible thing. Identity is similarly flexible. Choosing what face you present to the world seems to me to be something best left to the individual. Until Wikileaks takes an interest in you, anyway, all in the name of “disclosure”, another pretty euphemism with delightfully Patriotic overtones to browbeat dissent. Because really, only the bad guys have information to hide, right?
If nothing else, even the “circles” design of G+ stands as testament to letting the user control the flow of information, though their iteration of RealID doesn’t (link to an excellent article, by the way). Certain conversations and information simply isn’t meant for everyone; even if it isn’t really sensitive and “private” (and not really belonging online anyway), different circles of acquaintances won’t care about everything the same way those in other circles will. That said, G+ is about revenue as well, even though they talk a good game about trying to keep discourse civil because, hey, who can object to civility? They market information. The services need to be monetized somehow. Of course your identity has value, and they will tap that as well as they can. You can’t complain much about a scorpion, after all. Maybe that’s “lazy nihilism” to recognize that fact, but I prefer to call it pragmatism. Much like you can’t realistically expect a politician to refrain from lying (though they might call it “discretion”), you can’t expect a business to operate as a charity. Charities operate just fine, but businesses are different things. (Not that profit itself is a bad thing, to be sure. There are good businesses out there.)
In the meantime, though, for those like Samuel Clemens, Lady Gaga or even J. K. Rowling, the best solution seems to be to avoid those channels where your choice in identity is ignored. Certainly those of the faceless masses with petty prejudices won’t mind if you simply step out of the flow of society; you’re easier to ignore that way.
I’m idly curious about transgendered people… how do they fit in? What about the girl with the obviously Muslim or Jewish name? What about the guy who can’t seem to escape the melanin in his face? What part does choice have to play in identity, and are some choices more approved than others? It always seems to me that these social paragons have suspiciously squishy standards. Massaging the message by silencing certain undesirables that don’t share your worldview is certainly the prerogative of an information broker, but that doesn’t say much about “integrity” in conversation.
But then, this never really was about integrity. It’s about the value your face has, and who gets to control that value.
I found the comments thread on Tobold’s post very informative. Several of the commenter’s are suggesting that Facebook and Google don’t really check for fake names but instead they monitor an accounts behaviour. That suggests that Tobold wasn’t caught because he was using an Alias. He was caught because he was using his account for gaming and had a massive list of “fake friends” that didn’t fit into the expected pattern for a normal facebook user.
While I can’t vouch for that there does seem to be a lot of folks who get away with obviously fake names. It also makes sense that Facebook’s main concern is to have inside information on networks of real people that they can sell for marketing purposes. As long as your behaviour fits into the normal profile and you provide them with that they don’t really care if you call yourself “Abraham Lincoln”.
Your point “Massaging the message by silencing certain undesirables that don’t share your worldview” seems like just what was happening during Germany in the second world war.
“You can’t complain much about a scorpion, after all.”
Sure I can! Then I buy some traps, because I don’t want those damn scorpions stinging my frogs.
The lazy nihilist is not at all practical. “Oh look, my house is on fire. Well, what can you do? Fire burns! Yep, let’s just watch it burn and maybe the kids will get out in time.” I like fire departments and sprinkler systems.
“you can’t expect a business to operate as a charity”
Of course we shouldn’t expect that. But surely there is some area between charity and ruthless pursuit of profit even if it is destroying the world.
Or maybe for business there is no such thing, that as the economists assume, they will always seek to maximize profit, in which case we’re going to need something to counter them. The well-informed consumer isn’t quite doing the trick. I wonder if there are any other ways to do this sort of thing, which we could call “regulation”.
Almost daily I ask myself “What am I getting out of these social networks?” I know what they are getting: demographics, ad sales, etc. But what do I get? On Facebook, I get games I can barely play unless I “cheat” and a few that work well (Words with Friends is my favorite – and technically I don’t need Facebook for it). I also get to know random things about people I randomly know but barely talk to…
Over on Google+, my choice of who to follow has been more discerning. It isn’t just “Do I know you?” it is “Are you interesting?” And I’ve taken on a few projects, like running a writers’ circle with prompts 2 times a week.
Sometimes, though, I consider just scrapping them all and going back to only my blog and various message boards, where either no one is monetizing me or at least I’m going it to myself.
mbp, aye, I noticed that, too. It makes the enforcement even more capricious. It’s all very… flexible.
ZombiePirate it seems very Orwellian, too. Seems we don’t learn much from history.
Kleps, you’re still confused. I’m not saying we can’t do anything about them, I’m saying we can’t imagine they are anything other than they are. Don’t impute charitable motives or trust the “integrity” arguments simply because they are stated. That’s not nihilism, though I can understand wanting to argue against that strawman.
Jason, indeed. I’ve been able to get in touch with a few old friends via Facebook, but now that I have emails for them, I’m covered. I’ve never bothered with FB gaming. G+ is OK, but I’d rather write long form here.
It’s possible that my reading comprehension has been failing recently or I’m mistakenly linking stances that should not be. What I mean is that it seems that there is a common strain of thought to say “that’s the free market” when anything bad happens to anyone, without the added “that’s the free market, here’s how we can deal with it,” possibly because the “how to deal with it” part often involves the G-word.
Coincidentally, as a result of some of the reading my class is doing, my students and I have been discussing this very topic, alongside the idea of making the “consumer” the “product,” which is of course precisely what all the “free” services are doing (and have been doing since Radio became a form of entertainment). I noticed you put a comment about that on – I think it was – Tobold’s blog, and it struck me how similar it was to what we’d been discussing in class.
The distressing part is that virtually none of my students are bothered by it. They don’t mind being “sold” by Hulu or CBS or Youtube to the advertising companies, nor do they mind the idea of drawing their friends into “free to play” games. It’s the nature of that generation, I guess. They’re used to it.
Just because they are used to it doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous. Fascism was something people in those countries during WW2 got used to after all.
Excellent post Tesh. Should we take to the streets of Palo Alto with our grievances? Or perhaps encouraging people to realize they are the product and not the consumer would be more effective in helping them understand that since we are not the consumer, we have no rights if we choose to use facebook and therefore have no grounds to complain, but we do have grounds and a responsability to warn others.
The companies do seem deaf to complaints, though we may as well keep up the pressure. In the end, though, I think education is the key. Those who don’t mind it may simply not know what’s going on. If they do and still don’t care, well, as much as I disagree with their apathy, it’s their call to make.
Because really, only the bad guys have information to hide, right?
I think it’s more a case of unconciously realising how hot headed many people are when judging such information, and holding onto it for that reason.
Though I’m not sure about poking at wikileaks. Some of the perverse judgements made by the US military, as if it’s wikileaks putting people into potentially dangerous situations. Actually, that would be the US military doing that. But hey, everyone but them aught to take complete responsiblity for their actions.