So – the idea of the internet loosing this or that a giving up of anonymity in order to participate is not a true reflection of society. However, it is certainly true that there are times when your actions may be better taken as an anonymous person.
]]>
s that being yourself makes you more trustworthy"</blockquote>. And here's where I agree with you that sometimes it's in your own best interest to be exactly who you are online - and that decision should be yours. Where the danger lies is when you would like to participate anonymously and cannot because you are opposed to breaking your own rules of privacy. That's not an even playing field.
@Peperuka - granted, we're moving towards a place where the gov't and companies can, and sometimes are, monitoring all you do. Where it can be increasingly difficult to remain anonymous. However, we shouldn't give them that ground without a fight. There is a real reason for the need to privacy and anonymity, and anyone who disagrees can take a look at the article posted below.
[on a related note, there is an excellent short Wired article on the <a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886" rel="nofollow">"if you have nothing to hide..."</a> argument related to privacy that just came out yesterday.]]]>@David G – I think you stated something pretty important when you said,
“It’s not that being anonymous makes you less trustworthy – it’s that being yourself makes you more trustworthy”
. And here’s where I agree with you that sometimes it’s in your own best interest to be exactly who you are online – and that decision should be yours. Where the danger lies is when you would like to participate anonymously and cannot because you are opposed to breaking your own rules of privacy. That’s not an even playing field.
@Peperuka – granted, we’re moving towards a place where the gov’t and companies can, and sometimes are, monitoring all you do. Where it can be increasingly difficult to remain anonymous. However, we shouldn’t give them that ground without a fight. There is a real reason for the need to privacy and anonymity, and anyone who disagrees can take a look at the article posted below.
[on a related note, there is an excellent short Wired article on the “if you have nothing to hide…” argument related to privacy that just came out yesterday.]
]]>I could write a book in response to this post. I agree and disagree with you both.
Anonymity should be a choice. A choice not only of the participant but also of the platform. There have been platforms that have thrived because of their anonymity – like Craigslist – and those that thrive because they’ve outlawed it – like facebook. Likewise, people can thrive online whether they are anonymous or transparent. I do think that when you choose to be anonymous you give up other rights and benefits. I don’t think it will ever work well for Google to require real names across all their properties but they may have some tools that it works for (not sure that Knol is one of them though.)
Observations:
– I agree with Ms Mayer in that I also believe that virtual systems [involving people work best] when they mirror the physical world [at its best.] (my edits are in [])
– For me, if you’re making money from whatever you’re doing online, and your customers are reading you, its simple; you better get comfortable with being public about your identity. It’s not that being anonymous makes you less trustworthy – it’s that being yourself makes you more trustworthy (than you’d otherwise be.) The whole “brand you” thing is real. That said, I don’t know that you have to brand your real name to benefit or for that matter, that using a consistent pseudonym online is equivalent anonymity. That’s where I disagree with you, Hash – the government these days unfortunately does not need you to sign your name to your comments to know you wrote them. [Hi GW] Depending on the lengths you are going to conceal your identity online, it may be less of a risk than many people think to abandon their identity.
Summary: I like to pick and choose where I sign my name.
]]>Thanks again for joining the conversation– your participation in the back channel provided an important and valuable perspective at Aspen. GroundReport.com also recognizes the need of anonymity, especially in regions with regimes of censorship and press intimidation.
]]>“Or you have Wikipedia, which usually gets most things right,” – Eheheh, just to nail down Wikipedia and promote the Knol launched by Google which required account verification…
I am for anonymity on the web (usually has 5 nicknames and always trie to never give my real name) but it is getting really difficult nowadays… I don’t know if you noticed it but nowadays a Google Account is mandatory to use most of Google services (lately, 18th of August, Google account is mandatory to open Google Adsense; same with Knol, Google Maps)…
You made a good comment about online free speech and BigBrother watching us… But, the (public) web is moving forward and will soon be a non-anynomous place where BigBrothers will watch all you moves. Oups !!! It’s not new since most amercian firms are tracking user behaviour without explicit consent. Just wondering when ISP will start earning money on our back by selling confidential information. Welcome to the world of third-party cookies, beacon and data gathering for our homeland security !!
]]>