Should Microcosm show the real identity of users?

I want to post anonymously. But there's no reason a site can't offer both options; nobody has to be forced to choose either option.

pseudonyms are very important. People don't necessarily want their real name next to everything they say online, the recent spate of people changing their usernames to initials proves this.

I'm really pushing for the "why" here.

The recent spate of changing usernames to initials on here might only prove there is a trend on here for initials, and might have nothing to do with identity.

And if you don't belong to either of those?

Other services that require real identity treat this as not their problem.

I'm more concerned with the general question of real identity vs an alias, rather than specifics over the implementation or execution of either.

I just notice that this topic have zero view despite several people reply, what up with that?

Scoblederail Bugs+Feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not really that bothered. I'd prefer to use a pseudonym, but if people want to sign up with their real identities it's up to them.

It would likely be a site option, the person who administered or created a site would get to dictate whether real identity would be required on that site.

Only on sites where real identity isn't required would you individually have the choice to out your real identity (by using that in the username).

I just notice that this topic have zero view despite several people reply, what up with that?

It's been said a thousand times before, the view counts are updated periodically for performance reasons.

I am relatively confident that if potential employers google full christian and surname they will not find any of my banal wafflings on here, or elsewhere.

This is why I stick to my pseudonym on here and elsewhere, although it really wouldn' t take much to uncover i feel I am a little protected against the cursory google search that someone might do.

I'm completely against this.

My reasons are basically due to the following:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking#Of_women
   
2. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis-hasteley/2011/11/rape-threats-abuse-sex-female
   
   

I've known, in the real world!, people who have lost jobs, been hounded out of their homes, and been approached and threatened in the street by people who obtained their personal identities after associating them with their messageboard posts. None of the victims of this treatment had done anything to "deserve" it. In all but one case they were women, and in every case they were treated in this way purely because they were able to be identified by people who do this kind of thing for sport.

Anonymity can increase the likelihood that people will behave badly because they can't be traced. It also increases the likelihood that people can talk about things that make them feel vulnerable because they don't need to fear repercussions. By enforcing communication only through a verifiable identity you deny these people the opportunity to discuss highly personal information without fear of having that information tied to them as individuals. Not everybody wants to discuss that kind of information, and that's fine. Those that do shouldn't be penalised or chilled by the threat of being outed.

I'm really pushing for the "why" here.

I'm more concerned with the general question of real identity vs an alias, rather than specifics over the implementation or execution of either.

Because although anything you type on the internet can be traced back to you anyway, it becomes that much easier when all it takes is a copy and paste of your name into facebook, or even easier if it uses a facebook or google+ account.
I'm sure if you go back through all my previous posts you can work out my first name, where I worked and probably where I live with a little social hacking; but if you see I typed "your bike is shit" and decide to send me a hateful email so search "sumo" on google, you'll get nothing relevant.

^^ This, Boffy said it all.

I guess the argument for real names is that people won't post as much shit, but it's not exactly youtube comments on here.

I'm against this.

Because penis beaker.

^^ This, Boffy said it all.

No, bothwell didn't say it all.

I really need all views, all feelings, and not "^ this"... I want to understand and be able to argue on the behalf of the views of the people who use communities.

Please do not encourage the end of the debate when it's barely the beginning.

This is a question about identity on forums, there are implications in the answer that you choose and these are roughly balanced thus:

Real identity helps fight spam and trolls, holds people to account for their posts, enables sharing of your actions across social networks and would enable business communities more easily.

Enabling sharing across social networks has no attraction to me. It strikes me as incredibly bad personal data discipline. I don't mean this in a DPA context but simply you need to be aware what data you splurge across the public domain. multiple aliases across the public internet acts as a basic control and segregation mechanism. this is why I have one pseudonym for personal activities and one for stuff that relates to my work life.

I don't think the argument that real IDs help fight spam and trolls is particularly credible for two reasons.

1. The LFGSS thought police can be particularly effective when someone transgresses an unwritten rule.
   
2. Any of the mods appear to be capable of sorting IP banning when required which is a solid deterrent.
   
   
   
   

I refuse to use any website that only has the option of Facebook/G+ sign in.
The thing is, i don't know exactly why; but i find it annoying to think they are forcing me to do it and don't give an option to signup as normal.

This

I think the FT has a nice system where you sign in with a real ID linked to billing information but are able to post pseudonymously. In addition you have the ability to change your pseudonym and it will flow through all previous posts.

My opinions / thoughts etc, on this site, are personal they have nothing to do with how or who i'm employed with and shouldn't.

Most potential employers use the internet in a lazy attempt to do their job of character assessment for them now. Colleagues / acquaintances / recruiters all do the same.

Currently, my name / surname in Google only brings up my LinkedIn profile and the picture associated with my account (along with one other person in Australia who has the same name as me).

Without the ability to share personal views in at least some anonymity, I wouldn't.

My employers don't know what I say at the pub; why should they know what I say online?

Thinking bigger than LFGSS, I honestly believe forced real identities will slow user uptake on microcosm. The only people that actually want forced real identities are organisations that have forums that want some accountability.

I refuse to use any website that only has the option of Facebook/G+ sign in.
The thing is, i don't know exactly why; but i find it annoying to think they are forcing me to do it and don't give an option to signup as normal.

Agreed. That said, still bemused that this is being presented as an absolute either/or choice by almost everybody. Reminds me of a scene from one of the Hitchhiker books where a spacecraft crashes on a planet where nobody has ever seen the sky. They look every direction but up.

I am open to being persuaded otherwise by people who have thought more about it than I have, but my initial thoughts are:

1) Users

Some users want anonymity. I would say most users do - for all the various reasons above, it promotes deeper discussion, it means your work cannot see exactly how much time you spend posting on internet forums, your boyfriend doesn't find out you've been posting in a relationship advice thread, etc etc.

I know that the point is you are trying to work out whether they do, but if your users want anonymity then you need to provide it!

2) making microcosm work as a business

Facebook, google, apple (?) require real ID, and are huge and permanent.
AFAIK there is no uniform underlying provider for the online services that are anonymous. Microcosm could become that. Maybe a good thing, maybe not - why are the big ones not anonymous?

Facebook etc. are advertising/marketing tools. I think that they miss the point that we are interesting to people selling things because we are consumers (i.e. people who like things and want to buy them [and talk about them, and work out which is best to buy/watch/eat/visit/etc]) - not because we are Real Person X, who is friends with Real Person Y.

I'm not explaining this very well.

I think that the real identity is probably not important to the people who will end up paying the bills and help make microcosm successful - people who advertise things. I am not sure that they agree though.

If you are a "socially conscious" brand selling things, then you might be happy to say to your customers "we get market info from XYZ system, which gives us deep, useful data on anonymous consumers".

Maybe.

And PS I also do not log in to anything that requires google/facebook log in. I don't have google+/facebook....

why? e.g. my sister came to visit me, and parked using someting called something like www.parkatmyhouse.com - she logged in using facebook.

My dad then later that day called and said "oh, yes, I knew you were visiting, you paid £13 to park on someone's driveway". Apparently by logging in (and probably not un-ticking a box or something, I don't know) my sister "liked" the parking website so it came up on her feed.

I would become almost 100% a lurker if I were required to use my real name - I don't want to have an internet presence at all particularly - I don't wander the streets shouting about my interest in 9mmx26tpi nuts with a big sign around my neck showing my real name, so I don't want to do it online either :)

You always hear the 'why would you want a pseudonym, what have you got to hide arguments?' I don't want to post behind a pseudonym because I've got anything to hide, or to act as a troll or because I post anything controversial I'd rather not put my name to. I'm basically a cynic and think that any website, forum or whatever thats wants my real details, other than bank details and stuff for internet shopping purposes, is harvesting information, building profiles and trying to market or spam me with something now or inthe future. I guess I'm old school but I like to think I make selections about what I want rather than having assumptions made on my behalf and suggestions made to me. I get riled with the Amazon suggestions of 'other people that bought this also bought....well bully for them, but sorry I could'nt give a shit.

There are effective filters for spam, agreed it may reduce trolls, but as for this '...enables sharing of your actions across social networks and would enable business communities more easily', shudder, I have no interest in that at all, but then I left facebook years ago and have zero interest in twitter etc.

I like this sites self moderation, out of order statements are usually called out pretty quicky, and you have rules and ban people that breach them. I'm not a techy and am under no illusions about lack of real security or anonymity on the internet, if the NSA or other 'authorities' really want access to any details and info they want on me or anyone else, on here or the interwebs in general, they can get it. But in my tiny luddite mind I still feel a tiny bit more removed from it if I don't have my name listed up front, it may all be an illusion, but its acomfort blanket all the same. So yes I avoid sites that require real user details.

I have a facebook with my real name and I've posted around 20 times in 3 years. I never say anything of interest. I can't stand to spend much time there because no-one else says anything of interest either, it's mainly rather mundane stuff, chitchat between strangers who haven't met in 15 years. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't here. Here is animated, provocative, entertaining, funny, infuriating, engaging and ultimately more meaningful and rewarding. I believe that this is enabled by pseudonyms.

You might just say I have boring friends. True enough. But most people feel the need to be boring when associated with their real names, in full view of all their friends and family and colleagues. All these different groups. I've always found it tricky to reconcile different scenes/spheres, I don't think I'm deceiving anyone, but I find it quite stressful to deal with these different groups of people, to the extent that in the one place where it happens (fb) I basically don't. Having a lifestyle/opinions that are at odds with most of my family does mean you tend to juggle. It would be great if I was out and proud and stuff the detractors, but I'm not. I have made a decision not to have those conversations.

This here forum is an interesting case. I'm not obviously associated with me, on here, but many people know the real life me, and there is no explicit protocol for how that information is managed. Plus there a lot of people here who know me a little but not well. This sends me into anxious spirals when viewing the friends requests on fb, because forumengers often talk about the forum, and it would be easy to mention me forum name on my facebook, which I do not want. Other online places I use are smaller circles, small enough that there is a shared consensus about privacy (and it is always that you do not reveal real names online, and you do not mention pseudonyms in connection with real names) or they are big places with Rules about what you can and cannot share.

Of course I say enough on here that it's very easy to work out who I am. If I meet you in the pub I will introduce myself by my real name and tell you about my job. But if you google my real name it doesn't lead here, and if you google hoefla it doesn't lead to the real me (at least, not on the first page), and that is good enough for me. My parents won't find this.

This is getting a bit TL:DR but in the case of Microcosm, think about what it's for. It's making little niches where communities can feel comfortable. It doesn't require much thinking to think of many groups where you could be providing a valuable service to facilitate a community, a niche, where they can communicate, where easy (relative) anonymity is really really important to the value and success of the community. I remember (maybe mis-remember) you saying that in microcosm you would be able to change your alias for different microcosms, so your fly-fishing persona and your queer activism persona and your cycle nerd persona don't have to be linked, if you don't want them to be.

It's good to have a place where you can be who you want to be.

that and all the "I want to be able to mouth off about work without my employer finding me" stuff, too.

Never mind my real name. I don't even use the same pseudonym for my all my online activity.

I would not join or post to a public forum that showed my real name. You do not know anyone else on there at first, and you need the buffer zone created by a pseudonym in case any of the other members turn out to be wrong-uns. There has been some very stalky behaviour by some people on this forum towards others, as well as threats of violence. Maybe the anonymity made that possible in the first place, but I think it probably prevented it from being worse.

Look at the cases of bullying via facebook to know that real identities plus fairly public access is not a good idea.

I'm basically a cynic and think that any website, forum or whatever thats wants my real details, other than bank details and stuff for internet shopping purposes, is harvesting information, building profiles and trying to market or spam me with something now or inthe future.

This is very true, an example would be Evans Cycles' insistent on asking personal details in order to sell promotional good and the like (as well as help their marketing by selecting the appropriate stocks for specific shop).

I always get in trouble for not filling out the forum when customer declined, glad I'm not there anymore.

I do think it's good that "anonymous" (ie. not logged-in) comments aren't allowed though.

I'm really pushing for the "why" here.
...
I'm more concerned with the general question of real identity vs an alias, rather than specifics over the implementation or execution of either.

Anonymity.

Obviously you can't be 100% anonymous, but that additional level of protection gives you that little bit more freedom. Sometimes that means you've got freedom to be a cunt, but it also means that you've got freedom to ask questions and think aloud in a way that you might not always be able to if any random browser can identify you. For eg why do we bother having a private section?

It might be different for younger people who have always lived in a Facebook world.

May not be a problem a lot of people have, but at least as far as I can tell, I'm the only person on the internet with my combination of first name and surname. It makes it pretty stupidly easy to directly attribute anything posted under my full name to me, so as a rule of thumb I try and keep to only publicly posting things with my name that I would want a future employer to read, which would probably have kept me from posting about 95% of what I have so far on the forum. I'm aware that if somebody really wanted to, they could figure out who I am from my forum posts easily enough, but I'd rather they couldn't find them as easily as just searching my name.