As the New Yorker cartoon goes: on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. It’s part of the web’s charm: we can lead rich digital lives without disclosing who we really are.
Pseudonymity. It’s a common practice. I mean, on Twitter, I’m @slowdecade.
But Google+, the hot new social network from the eponymous search giant, isn’t a fan of the practice. In recent weeks, the service has suspended the accounts of many users with suspicious sounding names on the basis of a controversial ‘Real Name Policy’.
Some of those users were trolls, some of them were spammers, and some were just regular people who wanted a clear divide between their online and offline selves.
According to the search giant, this policy was intended to cultivate a civil community free of trolls. Privacy advocates are in an uproar and see the policy as an attempt to flatten all identity on the web.
To understand the effects of Google+’s Real Name Policy on online privacy, Nora spoke to Zeynep Tufekci, an outspoken blogger and associate professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina.
You can hear the full, uncut interview below, or download the MP3. [runs 24:39]
Play audio:
If you like hearing these extended interviews, why not subscribe to Spark Plus? You’ll get regular weekly episodes, plus additional blog-only content like this. [Subscribe via RSS] or [Subscribe with iTunes]
Scientia potentia est. Either you are in the Matrix, or you are with the terrorists, baby.
Great interview. I'm commenting here with a blogging pseudonym, so I have a few points to add. The "driver's license name only" policy doesn't work in many ways. As a book blogger, an obvious name I thought of is pen names for writers. Writers branching out in different genres, or regularly publish across genres where there isn't a lot of audience overlap (e.g. romance and horror) would benefit from having separate Twitter accounts, Google+ identities, etc. Who is to say that a writer's professional name and the community they'd build around that identity is less valuable to the online platform built around their driver's license name? The same goes with many other creators: musicians with stage names (Cher has a surname on her driver's license, but you may not immediately recognize it), actors/actresses with their movie star names, etc… The examples are endless. If George Orwell was alive now, he could be banned from Google+. But we'd never search for Eric Blair, would we?
Also, speaking from a multicultural angle, I know many people use an English first name in their personal and work life, but legally have a non-English first name that not even their closest friends can remember. So should they also be barred from Google+ if they want to use the name they're most known by? I think that's counterproductive. I hope Google changes this policy soon.
Interesting interview. There's a site online that addresses almost every one of Ms Tufekci's criteria for successful online identity management: http://stackexchange.com — I'd be very interested in hearing their voice in the discussion of online identity.
There's the Spark that I know and love! I was wondering where you went. Loved the opening question.
I've been one of the few regular posters here who has spoken for pseudonymity before, but now the whole thing strikes me as a little passé. By now, I would only be parroting things I've already said. Besides, this is merely endemic of a lot of the larger issues that come with private sector social networks trying to operate on this large of a scale with such a small supporting staff. It's a little sad that we can only talk about it once problems like these come up, but I guess everyone is willing to ignore little things until they grow into big things.
All the same, I do hope Google can reconsider their position. I would like to at least try Google+ out before passing my judgement on it, but doing so right now would risk locking me out of other Google services on the same beat.
The biggest and most obvious point that is not seriously considered here is security. I do not use my real name on any social media network because I know how vulnerable they are to hackers and how tempting they are for marketers and other commercial interests, as well as perhaps more nefarious institutions who want to know about your habits. I do not want every little detail of my online life recorded, and why would you? Unless you are narcissistic, you wouldn’t.
If someone with the same name as me in another part of the country or world does something incredibly bad or illegal, it can be difficult enough in the physical world to prove that even though I am Joe Blow I am not the Joe Blow who raped and killed someone. Can you imagine how this problem would be compounded in the online realm? It would be a nightmare!
Also: anyone who thinks that Facebook and Google+ are just about providing a service to you is extremely naive or is trying to sell you something, or more likely trying to gather your information now so they can market something to you in the future. (cough, cough.. a certain so-called “learning officer”… on a certain podcast, perhaps?)
Finally, a question: why is it that in the age of information and the maturing internet, where information is so easy to disseminate, there are so many people trying to consolidate your information and identity? Why is it that a tool such as the internet, which can add so much to the self through learning, education, and expression, is being used more and more to pigeon-hole you into “Type A” that likes “Type B” and will buy Brands X through X65. Don’t you think this is more than a little ironic?