Have you ever been an "Anonymous" poster on the Interwebs? Posted opinions, put-downs, kind words – anything at all by not using your real name or a known "username" which would identify you as "you" in a "real" way? Well, if you have been among the millions of posters on message boards/comment sections, it is likely you have used a different name than your own.
Unless you have been very brave or reckless with an email address and username, or, simply don't care that your online name is your real name just cuz', you may want to pay attention to the not-so-subtle lurch toward the obstruction of your secret online life.
Google + demands your real name if you want to be part of their new social network. Or else. If you make a mistake in your profile, you'll be shut down/suspended for days - indefinitely. You may have signed-in as your real name but something about it didn't meet their criteria and suddenly you are shut out of not just Google + but any and all Google-attached accounts you may have until someone eventually decides whether or not you are truly who you say you are.
It's a tad intrusive, I gather, to regain one's account access when the Big Cyber Hand of Google pulls a pinch on you. Oh yeah. People who have had their accounts suspended based on a Google deemed “suspicious” name, have had to provide proof that their names are actually their real names by sending Google an image of their Driver's License, along with plying the Google-Gods with real life friends who intervene on one's behalf in droves to attest to the validity that you are, indeed, YOU!
The scenarios I've been reading are akin to what one would expect from a sequel to George Orwell's oft-cited "Nineteen Eighty-Four" with the emergence of the Big Brother character, now known as your Bank, local and federal agencies, and anyone with online access to public records flaunting your personal information to place on sale to potential employers, mates, and lost loves, or those who want to know where you live and how much you make, and, in conjunction with Google Map, the precise location of your home via satellite.
Brrrrrr. Kinda creepy, that.
But the above is precisely where it's at and will increasingly be as the lasso begins to capture the herds on their way to what they believe is simply online play, a nice virtual hang-out with a group of Friends, Acquaintances, or Family members, depending on how you decide who fits into your categorized social circles on Google + - another way to sort the wheat from the chaff, or, in basic English, who you deem to be cool enough to know what you had for breakfast as opposed to those you only care to share your latest shoe purchase.
On Google + you create your own little circle-bubble of those categories without the reciprocal participation of your Chosen Ones. You may like them and put them in a circle of love and all that but if they don't feel the same about you, you're sitting alone in a circle of little picture faces who may not be all happy and glad you have pegged them where you have in the personal circles of Google + land.
It seems like such a silly childhood game with no guaranteed candy canes.
Is it worth it to hurl one's self through the Google + hoop just to be part of the latest cool group? Millions are doing so, and I'm one of them. My profile picture is sitting on a nice new page of my very own where I have begun to create little circles of other picture faces categorized by how I perceive my association to them.
How this new format will work out remains to be seen, as many people have expressed a preference for the less obviously snobby format of Facebook.
But Facebook is beginning to sound like Google + in the "real name" online debate. Earlier this week, Randi Zuckerberg said this about online anonymity: It Has To Go Away
What a wet blanket, this Randi is. If everyone had to use their real names what fun would all the nasty fights on forums and comment sections be? How would the truly evil people handle their deep dark Shadow Self if they couldn't release it by slinging insults at other anonymous strangers? Perhaps one of the reasons why the crime rate has gone down in the U.S. over the years is because many people are spewing their venom over the Internet under the guise of anonymity rather than killing their Significant Other or smashing a neighbor's window when their music is too loud.
Yes, cyber-bullying is a legitimate problem. Hiding behind the "Anonymous" shield of the Interwebs does bring out the very worst in some people, and it's true that when it goes too far the recipient may suffer. But, despite the cloak and dagger play, others use the veil of anonymity to have fun in a benign, amusing manner by creating characters of silliness or wittiness. There is indeed a case to be made for both sides of the debate.
Aside from both the fun and dark elements of online secret identities, the issue of real concern from my perspective is how much information we are asked to provide to otherwise anonymous eyes on the other side of the screen.
We may learn the name of the website's/biz’s founder as well as a few others with a title, but I know that whenever I've placed a call to Customer Service at some of these outlets, I'm usually talking to a person with a fake name in another part of the country or the world. A person just as "Anonymous" as words on a page.
And yes, because they are representing a professional organization they have to be nice or they'll lose their job, so my argument regarding their use of false names may not have a great deal of strength in relation to Randi Zuckerberg's or Google +'s desire for everyone to sign-in as exactly who they are in real life. For a social network, I agree, despite the Draconian measures of Google + with scary account suspensions.
The tone of Zuckerberg’s suggestion that everyone should be required to use real names (or, I would think, a username that can be identified as “you” in some vague way), is the first step toward censorship on an outlet for millions.
HEY..........IT'S ME!!!!!!!!!!!! (John W. Howard)
ReplyDelete