Social Media I.D. – The Death of the Username?
By: Lindsay Bell
Ahhhh the halcyon days of summer! G&Ts on the dock (make it a large one!), bar-b-ques, and kids with too much time on their hands. Halcyon is actually a Greek term, derived from a bird of legend that calmed the surface of the sea in order to brood her eggs on a floating nest. The halcyon days of lore generally began around the 14th or the 15th each December, and the phrase is a personal favourite, as it conjures up warm fuzzy feelings of the ‘good old days’. For example, remember the halcyon days of online privacy? We’ve written about online privacy in the past, and while it’s difficult to control the amount of information that can be gathered about you while surfing the web, one way to throw a wrench into the data gathering machine is to refrain from using your real name. But what happens when you cloak yourself in anonymity? Does it impact the way you function online? One New York blogger found out the hard way when she used anonymous posts to tar and feather a rather high profile NY personality. She was sued after a game changing court order forced her provider to reveal her identity. Would she have said the same character damaging things if face to face with her victim? Who knows. But chances are she would have thought twice. As social media is all about personal engagement, how ‘personal’ can you really be when you’re functioning as @supergirlXOX? Josh Mackey from Peek You knows a thing or two about social media, and has an interesting take on the etiquette – or lack thereof – of hiding behind the username.
Hi Josh, thanks for chatting with us today. Can you tell our community about yourself for those who don’t know you?
Hi Lindsay, thanks for the offer. Well, I am an Australian living in New York with my Canadian wife and our 7 month old American son. My youth was spent in hospitality management by day and Internet startups by night, and currently I am GM of Product at PeekYou a New York-based search company focused on indexing the public web around people. In my role I have a specific focus on developing social audience measurement solutions for the listening and analytics industry. By leveraging our unique data we are able to deliver deeper audience insights to follower counts, “influence” scores and engagement metrics.
You’ve written in the past about the ‘death of the username’, and I loved your thoughts on it. For everyone else, what does “Death of the Username” mean to you?
I believe that soon a transparent online identity will become the norm, and lurking behind anonymous usernames, the exception. More and more people put a premium on interactions with other people whom they can identify, and who can be held accountable for their online actions. One’s Internet reputation will become almost as valuable as one’s offline reputation. Even today, we’d all rather know who left that comment, wrote that article, sent that email, or is selling this car.
What explains people’s change in behavior when they interact anonymously online?
I think it comes down to a simple lack of accountability. My post referenced the Rebecca Black saga, where so many people seemed to be unable to refrain from publicly ridiculing this 13-year-old girl trying to be a singer-songwriter. If she sang at a school talent show in the ‘real accountable world’ the reaction would be very different. Why? Because of the negative consequences of behaving uncivilly—to one’s reputation and even to one’s standing in the community.
Our theme this month is “Social Media Etiquette” – has the online sensibility changed in the last ten years? Is it perceived as ‘rude’ these days to hide behind an anonymous username? And if so, why?
No, I don’t think being anonymous is “rude”, but the choice is a personal one. Saying that, I believe people are more likely to use proper etiquette and act accordingly online if their offline reputation is at stake. What has changed over the last 10 years is peoples’ concept of online identity; more and more people are starting to realize the positive value that can be driven from having a robust and respected online presence.
There are clearly pros and cons to staying anonymous. Using a username instead of one’s real name is attractive to what type of online user?
There are many reasons people may want to remain anonymous, in the post I covered four:
1) Value privacy above all else
There are legitimate concerns over privacy, I don’t deny it, but ultimately people need to understand that public identity and privacy are two different notions, and that you can declare who you are without violating your own privacy. Simple steps go a long way; steps such as thinking twice before posting personal details, and keeping details off the record like, birthdays, phone numbers, street addresses, medical and financial records, and SSNs. Disseminating this kind of information on the Internet can be disastrous to your privacy. Divulging what your favorite music bands or movies are? Not so much.
2) Seek free speech for political reasons
Free speech is another catch cry on behalf of the anonymous web, and sure, if you live in Iran, and wish to speak out against the government, then you have a case. But if you yearn for “free speech” as nothing more than a cover for bad-mouthing people while not exposing your identity, then you don’t garner much sympathy from me.
3) Wish to live vicariously
Some people need the web to be a fantasy land, a valve of release. I get it, I also understand some people not divulging their real identity on sites like IMVU or Second Life. Doing otherwise would defeat the purpose of such virtual worlds premised on escaping reality. But should we commiserate with someone who wants to live vicariously as a bully on YouTube, or as a jerk on TechCrunch or the WSJ? I think not.
4) Are bad players
Simply put, some people are straight up bad players who are planning to do illegal or immoral things online, which can’t possibly be done without the use of an anonymous username or fake identity. Think “How to Catch a Predator.”
To sum up, do you believe that the web will evolve to be a place where users will expect – maybe even demand – that the people they communicate with be transparent?
Yes, I think in the not-too-distant future, a deep chasm will open throughout the Internet. On one side of it will be a transparent market of people and ideas, where people network and transact with their cards on the table and virtual name tags on. And on the other side will be the black market, so to speak, of shady dealings, casual encounters, cyber bullying, and other unsavory activities, all of which thrive only under the shade of the anonymous username. Unfortunately if you choose to be anonymous, even if you have the best intentions, you’ll be left in the company of the BigDog69’s and hotdude2000’s of the web, untrusted and ignored, like spam.
-30-
We would like to send out a hearty thanks to Josh for chatting with us. Hopefully we’ve inspired a bit of critical thinking around online anonymity. What do you think? Is the Internet evolving into an ‘us and them’ place, where some of us are transparent, while the (possibly) more nefarious among us operate under anonymity? Would you follow or friend someone whose real name you didn’t know? What about doing business with them? Have you yourself ever left a comment or posted a criticism under a username, or said things that you might not have said if you were face to face with someone? This is where we ask you to please add your thoughts and comments below!
Note: PeekYou is an official partner to Radian6 via the Insights Platform.
Tags: Insight Reporting, insights platform, online privacy, PeekYou, Rebecca Black, Social Etiquette, Social Media, social media insights, techcrunch, username, Wall Street Journal, YouTube
I disagree that posting one's favorite bands isn't a ding at your privacy…look at how they caught Whitey Bulger. The FBI gave tips on some of the social actions of his girlfriend, and what she liked to do. Bingo. Caught. Sure, took 19 years, but much of that was way before the age of Social Media.
You can tell a lot about a person by their interests.
Thanks for the comment Tim,
I don't really get your example though; I don't think her privacy was 'dinged' at all. I would argue once I post something publicly online, I can no longer claim it as 'private'. I would also imagine the FBI have the legal power to access all of Whitey's and GF's online and offline data as they both had a warrant for their arrest? (FYI – I like Criminal Minds and Law & Order)
At the end of the day, it all comes down to personal preference. Control what you put out there, control your privacy settings. Personally, I understand the risks so I don't mind people knowing my interests. I have my own standards of what I am willing to share and I guess I will live with the future consequences of that.
My point is by posting "anonymously" by using a nick instead of your real name allows you to put out those things that you like, such as band names, books, etc.
If you use your real name and put that out, then it becomes much easier to build a profile on Josh Mackey or Tim Weaver than it is on Superdude36 or McDoodleydo17. Sure, you can build a profile on them, too, but until you can connect it to a person (which is probably given how people operate) it's meaningless.
The Whitey Bulger example probably wasn't the best, since his GF wasn't giving away what she liked to do on Social Networks. But it would be really simple to do if she had.
I think, though, an even more common example would be to stay out of the eye of an employer, spouse or parent…anyone you didn't want connecting you with what you're doing online. As a potential employer, you might Google my name, but if I don't use my name then you get nothing, or info on other Tim Weaver's.
One could use social profiling in job interviews…the hardest part might be finding out the names of the interviewers. Once you had those, you could find out all sorts of things, which could permit you to get a better idea of the interviewer as a person…are they conservative or liberal? Like or dislike the same things as you do…for example, if you are a hunter and you find that the interviewer is a PETA supporter, mentioning how you got drawn for Fall Elk might not go over well…assuming you would even WANT to interview there in the first place.
If the interviewer wasn't using their real name, how would you ever find these things out?
So, yes, if you put something out onto the Interwebs, then it's no longer private. If it's not connected to your name, however, it's certainly not as public.
Does that make sense?
It makes total sense Tim; sure there are specific ways that certain information can 'hurt' people. I will always defend the right to anonymity online; people should have the right to decide what they put their name to.
I personally think that if I treat the internet the same way as the real world, then my internet 'footprint' should help me more than hurt me. For me, my etiquette/content/opinion rules are the same for online as offline. I am happy for people to judge/profile me on my internet footprint. All I am saying is that “more and more people will put a premium on interactions with other people whom they can identify, and who can be held accountable for their online actions”
Thanks again
Josh
Good thoughts. In almost all communities, non-anonymous users are far more valuable. I agree with you that we'll probably see the good networks require it, and only low-value sites will still allow it (desperate for users as they are). Hence anonymity will be seen only in the great spammy badlands, and the trolls can fight each other all day long.
Peter, totally agree.
If we look at this topic from a social marketing perspective, brands should take a long term view on platforms like Twitter, by valuing and targeting "identified” social users. Why? I would make the claim that people with a transparent i.e. a merged online and offline identity and reputation, are more likely to be trusted, have more social connections, have higher social capital or influence, and can more fully leverage their social presence across multiple platforms. Making them more valuable if a brand can get them to engage or push their content.
Thanks for reading the post and leaving your comments Peter. I think the days when a jazzy (often juvenile) user name was all the rage are waning. Cheers, Lindsay
I agree. I'm finding less and less need for a user name, and have grown to prefer using my name, or something very similar (my name is a little long, 1st & last are 14 letters plus the space). Following comments after news reports or other articles and you often find that the anonymous/user names tend to be the ones with no true feedback, simply trolls. There are of course the exceptions to the rule. As we demand companies become more transparent, I think that we will have to also become more transparent. It will be interesting to watch this develop.
"As we demand companies become more transparent, I think that we will have to also become more transparent."
Great point, thanks for the comment.
Hi Lindsay,
Interesting Josh's vision, but I see it way too idealistic. Internet has grown as it's grown in part thanks to anonymity. I'm not sure, if everybody is required to give their real name, if the exposure and fame of Internet and would be as high as it is now. Also, how can you control this? You will have to asign a unique IP or something like that almost from the day you are born. It's difficult, not to say impossible. I guess time, long time, will tell.
Cheers
I agree it's far, far, far too simplistic.
In the real (physical) world there are all kinds of ways to be anonymous at times, yet most pro-transparency people conveniently forget this. Yes, a lot must happen out in the open in the real world, but there is a lot MORE (legitimate) business done behind closed doors.
I don't see the pro-transparency people saying we should mimic the real world online by having public identities AND building some back alleys into the internet. When someone starts saying that, then I'll listen. It's a bit Pollyanna-ish otherwise.
Josh makes a really poor argument on his points #2 and #3. He gives two good reasons for staying anonymous, but then tries to claim these aren't good reasons because other people may also be doing bad things.
This is a non-sequitur – online bullies on YouTube don't invalidate the merits of anonymity elsewhere, they're separate phenomena. If Josh is arguing that political activists should be forbidden anonymity (and thereby freedom of speech) to prevent YouTube bullying, he should have the guts to come out and make such a ridiculous claim more clearly… At the moment, he merely insinuates through some rather weak chains of association.
The key point he's missing is that a robust, respected online presence only requires a stable name or user ID – which doesn't have to be a "real" name. In fact real names are actually quite bad identifiers in many cases, as there are hundreds of people in the country with the same firstname/forename combination. Alternative handles may be more useful (and memorable) for many.
Additionally, there's no guarantee that anyone calling themselves by what looks like a real name is actually called that in real life. Too much trust in real names can lead people astray (c.f. the Syrian lesbian blogger incidents, or Johann Hari's sockpuppetry.)
And finally Josh needs to be a bit more transparent around the fact that his job is monetising online identities to sell them to marketers. He's financially motivated on one side of the debate, so of course he's not going to present a balanced, well-thought out argument. Morally good real-name people vs. bad anonyms – really? Does anyone believe it'll be that playschool simple?
Thanks for your comment hautepop.
It is definitely a complicated area and you make good points above.
I just wanted to say that I am sorry you think that I was not transparent enough. My assumption was that the Radian6 audience would understand this from my introduction:
"I am GM of Product at PeekYou a New York-based search company focused on indexing the public web around people. In my role I have a specific focus on developing social audience measurement solutions for the listening and analytics industry"
My Twitter bio:
"Product manager at PeekYou, launched Social Analytics API, delivering social audience measurement to the listening industry"
And the disclaimer:
"Note: PeekYou is an official partner to Radian6 via the Insights Platform"
Thanks again hautepop
Cheers
Josh Mackey
[...] Social Media I.D. – The Death of the Username? « Social Media Monitoring and Engagement – Radia… [...]