Should Microcosm show the real identity of users?

I have wanted to change my lfgss name to Winnifred for a while, which is my name on facebook. But it wouldn't be to hide my indentity- it's not so much an alter ego as a different version of the same person. I often have to explain this to people when they cant find me online, but once they know it's me it just seems normal after a while, same as when I dress up in real life.

I don't really care, I have to use social media nonsense for work which sometimes crosses over with here and I am OK with all of it. BUT having done various focus groups with campaigners who really really really want to have some kind of social platform for interaction - and these are mostly people 40+ - there is nervousness around Facebook mainly for the identifiable issue and many of them have said they'd prefer to sign up with a pseudonym.

I've also had people refuse to write blog posts because they're nervous about having their photo and name attached to a piece of web content, but I imagine that's not the kind of person who's likely to get stuck into Microcosm.

Thinking out loud - would it be possible to have an option for a microcosm to not be indexed by google? That way you could use real names, or some approximation of, whilst still maintain anonymity from randoms doing google searches. (What CYOA said)

No google rank = forum death.

For me this sounds a bit like the "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument when talking about surveillance. Sometimes I don't want my behaviour to be easily trackable by others I know, especially in a profession context. For some forums I can imagine real names being useful, for instance anything which relies on the external (non-forum) reputation of the participants, e.g. a scientific discussion forum.

I can also see a case for it being optional within the same forum, e.g. A forum for health/medical advice/support might want advisors to use their real name, but give other participants the option of remaining anonymous.

No google rank = forum death.

That's true.

People always leave communities, and if a community isn't discovered by new people then that basically means communities decline.

The only way to keep a community vibrant in the long-term is to be open to new people and to welcome them. They are what keep communities fresh.

The only way to keep a community vibrant in the long-term is to be open to new people and to welcome them. They are what keep communities fresh.

No google rank = forum death.

That's true.

People always leave communities, and if a community isn't discovered by new people then that basically means communities decline.

The only way to keep a community vibrant in the long-term is to be open to new people and to welcome them. They are what keep communities fresh.

But is there no way to selectively choose what's indexed? By the end user? Like these alleged privacy settings on Facebook and so forth?

Not to the degree that some of us opposed to real world id would be comfortable with. Even if you could prove the privacy now, can you assure me that a small change in five years will not have me going back through my forum history because now the settings are on a post by post basis with the default to public?

^ this is also a good point that hasn't been addressed before now

LFGSS itself is a mature community - other communities that migrate here may also be mature. How many people are going to be happy at the thought that a forum where they thought they had a degree of privacy is suddenly going to turn into a forum where they have none?

But is there no way to selectively choose what's indexed? By the end user? Like these alleged privacy settings on Facebook and so forth?

No there isn't.

What permissions and visibility exists on Microcosm powered sites exists at the level of the Microcosm.

The idea of user privacy settings on comments works as a concept for a social network where data is orientated around the user, but it couldn't work on a community/interest site where the conversations are collective by nature.

What you get in a forum are permissions and privacy settings at the scope of a forum/Microcosm. This is similar to how the "General" forum is globally visible but the "Private" forum is not indexed by Google and only visible and accessible by members of the site.

So the Microcosms (forums within a site) have permissions controlling visibility... and whoever moderates or creates those Microcosms define the visibility.

Thus... not a user setting.

^ this is also a good point that hasn't been addressed before now

LFGSS itself is a mature community - other communities that migrate here may also be mature. How many people are going to be happy at the thought that a forum where they thought they had a degree of privacy is suddenly going to turn into a forum where they have none?

Eh? What? It's a bad point... as it creates an idea of a collective work (which is what a community is, it's what a conversation with many participants is) and tries to apply many instances of individual control over it.

It's confusing, illogical, and tries to enforce broken ideas from social networks onto forums.

The privacy/permissions of a forum have always been at the scope of the forum in which you participate. Not the site... but the forum itself... forum67.html for example.

All of that still exists, will still exist, and if anything has become far more clear and strictly enforced.

Eh? What? It's a bad point... as it creates an idea of a collective work (which is what a community is, it's what a conversation with many participants is) and tries to apply many instances of individual control over it.

It's confusing, illogical, and tries to enforce broken ideas from social networks onto forums.

The privacy/permissions of a forum have always been at the scope of the forum in which you participate. Not the site... but the forum itself... forum67.html for example.

All of that still exists, will still exist, and if anything has become far more clear and strictly enforced.

I think we're talking about two different things, probably because I'm talking about something tangential to the discussion that Ramaye and CYOA are having rather than that conversation directly but without explicitly stating that I've changed context.

I'm considering events on a timeline thusly:

1. user joins forum as "bothwell", posts lots of things for a few years as "bothwell", secure in the knowledge that to the casual observer those posts will forever be associated with bothwell and nobody else
   
2. one day the forum owner decides to change the way the software works so that all posts are now associated with some kind of verifiable identity
   
3. "bothwell" is now no longer just "bothwell" but is also exposed as Realname O'Genuine and all those historical posts are associated with this new, expanded identity - unless "bothwell" fancies starting again as somebody else
   

i doubt that doing that would be legal(???) from a privacy standpoint

not that i ever think velocio would do such a thing

He wouldn't but when he cashes in and retires to the Bahamas, the new owners might.

i doubt that doing that would be legal(???) from a privacy standpoint
In which jurisdiction?

not that i ever think velocio would do such a thing
The future forum owner is not necessarily the current forum owner.

I think a key point is that should a site wish to switch from Pseud to Real, it should be up to each member whether their Pseud posts are reassigned to their identity-bound profile.

I don't know how this would be handled when other users posts can have "profile identifiers" embedded in them, either via quote attribution or simply " told me"...

NB i should say I don't think for a nanosecond that velocio would do something like what I've outlined in my timeline. I'm noting it only as an implication of that core proposal of "what if we used RealNames", not as a fear of what Microcosm might become.

I know social networks are fundamentally different to fora, but hasn't the discussion above already happened to a greater or lesser extent with Facebook?

Maybe it was a scam, but wasn't there a load of concern about facebook making changes to privacy setting applied to historical posts as well as future posts?

Yep, I'm also the only one with my name, like fade, and had to alter my FB name to shake off some "friends from school". Mostly because they are now over 40 and are right wing bigots.

Which characteristic distressed you more?

They make me look old and cripple my style. I think I should also keep my distance from the Fucktones.

1. "bothwell" is now no longer just "bothwell" but is also exposed as Realname O'Genuine and all those historical posts are associated with this new, expanded identity - unless "bothwell" fancies starting again as somebody else
   
   

Does this imply that you post things you wouldn't want anyone to know you had posted? There are definitely things I have posted here that I would be embarrassed/sensitive about if people in the 'real' world knew, mostly in the depression thread, and some of my PC rants are quite embarassing. I guess the vague level of anonymity I have on here allows me to spaek in a way I wouln'd normally, but nothing I desperately need to keep secret.

Does this imply that you post things you wouldn't want anyone to know you had posted? There are definitely things I have posted here that I would be embarrassed/sensitive about if people in the 'real' world knew, mostly in the depression thread, and some of my PC rants are quite embarassing. I guess the vague level of anonymity I have on here allows me to spaek in a way I wouln'd normally, but nothing I desperately need to keep secret.

It implies only that I post things quite openly here that I wouldn't be happy to associate with my real name, which is also the reason that I'm not keen on people using my real name in their posts here. I wouldn't want, for eg, one of my crazy exes to think "i wonder what RealName is up to these days" and have a fun little google and consequently find out about this ride or that ride I'd be attending on a certain date at a certain time.

Because I've seen in practice how nutcases* can systematically use historical data (that you posted quite innocently) to ruin people's lives in the present, I'm perhaps more sensitive to this concept than most. Sure, it's reasonably unlikely to happen. But it does happen, and if the option is there to make it less likely that it will happen, then that option is what will get my unequivocal support.

*i haven't got any exes this mental in case anybody thinks these two paragraphs are directly linked, the people I've seen do this kind of thing typically haven't got any connection whatsoever to their victims

Are the poll results anonymous?

I believe normal users can only see vote counts, but admin can see individual votes.