Who are you?
On the Internet, that's been a complicated question for a long time. Back in the Jurassic era of the Web, people signed on to AOL with screen names like "cubsfan72," "dancerdoreen" and "pastorbob." Many kept that habit when they signed up for Yahoo mail and Gmail, and later Twitter. (Facebook always required proper names). A silly screen name was a chance to show off your allegiance to a team or cause, to take on an informal persona, to be the vanity license plate you always wanted or, most seriously, to hide who you really are.
That's the problem with anonymity - or more accurately, pseudonymity - on the Internet: it's either silly or shady, either goofing around or putting on a disguise. The only real problem with silly pseudonymity is when you want to do something serious, like apply for a job, and don't want to put "cubsfan72@yahoo.com" as contact information at the top of an otherwise polished resume. Other than that it's fairly harmless and not worth policing. Shady pseudonymity, on the other hand, can lie behind cyberstalking, false identity claims and spam - not to mention comment-thread shouting matches.
The differences between silly and shady pseudonymity are vast, but you have to use a single policy to address both. And so Facebook has a strict requirement that not only discourages pseudonyms, but even discourages the use of middle names as first names, as author Salman Rushdie recently found out in the midst of a public feud with Facebook. Until recently, Google Plus had a strict names policy that prevented brands and businesses from joining; it even shut down a personal page created by the technology website TechCrunch.com under the name Techathew Cruncherin. Spats like these have been called the "nym wars."
These episodes made Facebook and Google seem heavy-handed and tone-deaf. It's even harder to root for them in the nym wars when you consider their primary motivation is money. Facebook and Google want you to have one verifiable online identity so that they can gather as much information about you for advertisers as they can. Paradoxically, this means their security policies are for the purposes of snooping.
Can Christians find better reasons - ethical reasons, not commercial ones - to combat pseudonymity? The answer probably lies in the distinction between silly and shady pseudonymity. By itself, a pseudonym isn't necessarily a problem, a danger or a sin; it's why you took the pseudonym and what you use it for. (After all, many books of the Bible are pseudonymous.) And so, even when using a silly screen name, conscientious Web users could agree to fill out the first and last name boxes that usually accompany screen names on Web-based e-mail or social-media services. That would allow for the silliness without the shadiness.
More importantly, I think conscientious Web users should avoid pseudonymous comments, as the temptation seems stronger to go nuclear on someone when hiding behind a screen name. Even better, of course, commenters could aim to be civil and constructive. The real problem here is human nature in a fallen world, and no pseudonym policy can fully account for that.
(Photo courtesy of iStockphoto.)
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (17)
Also, I think pseudonyms are a good way to fight the internet's tendency to "flatten" our social interactions. What I mean is this. If I post to something to Facebook or if I send an email to a public listserv under my first and last name, then googling for "Marta Layton" will bring that up - whether it is my parents trying to see what I am up to online, or a potential date ferreting out my views, or a potential employer considering whether to give me an interview. There may be things I want to do online that are really only appropriate for friends in a certain circle. Not that I am ashamed of them, but just like in our offline life we maintain different personas (how we present ourselves at work, to family, at church, to friends on Saturday night, to the pollster asking our position on some issue, etc.), it may be appropriate to do the same online.
Finally, I think pseudonyms are a good way of creating an identity, communicating something essential about yourself. In a fairly small town, even today, where there are lots of Laytons my carrying the name puts that connection out there. Historically, last names also communicated occupations (look at the Jews with the last name Cohen, for example). We don't have that today anymore, because for most of us the world is so big, those connections don't mean much. But I think used rightly, pseudonyms are a way to get some of that back.
Of course - and this cannot be said strongly enough - pseudonyms do need to be constant. In my corner of the intarwebs, people sometimes will post a story under one name and then leave a flattering comment under another name, to leave the impression it is popular. Or they may say inflammatory things and then abandon the pseudonym in favor of a "clean" identity. But those are abuses. Christians certainly should resist this kind of thing. But I think there's lots of good reasons for saying pseudonyms are fine, in some circumstances.
As someone who came of age online, and who makes websites for a living - I have concluded that the reality is that there is no - zero - assurance of privacy in communication online.
I have many times wished this was not so, but the reality is that everything that we create that is connected to the Internet may possibly be made fully public.
Rather than fully retreat from online discussion and writing, however, it has made me more careful and thoughtful about what I write and post online. I use my real name, image, and public identity as a tool: to gain credibility in my profession, to engage and elevate debate on issues I care about. The tradeoff in privacy is worth it in my mind - in the areas I engage. I've often wished for a "private" journal that I can share with friends and close family and be totally open and honest.
I believe online mediums are not the place for that. Personal letters, diaries and the like are the only tools I can find suitable these days for private writing & image-making.
It also might be helpful to point out how pseudonyms can damage church culture. I learned this last week that famous pastor Mark Driscoll used to post on his church's messageboard under the pseudonym "William Wallace II." He posted attacks on congregants, "calling out" unChristlike behavior, and created an environment of suspicion and hurt. Using a pseudonym clearly made him feel like he could do and say whatever he wanted, apart from his identity and position as a pastor. That's problematic at best and terrifying at worst.
But, ultimately, how one presents their identity is up to that individual, and I know that many feel uncomfortable expressing themselves in a way that family or friends can connect it back to them, and we sort of have to let the individual decide - assuming that their pseudonymous identity is not actively hurting people.
I had a painful learning experience come from a ferocious disagreement done via email, which only amplified a misunderstanding into a friendship-ending problem. Having the same conversation in person would have made all the difference.
I see horrible comments on my local newspaper's website--comments that are nothing short of shameful. You can tell a lot about people by how they act when they're hidden behind their cyber-identities. If only we knew who they are....
Maybe I get over reactive once in a while because I come from a line of people who used to resolve issues by painting themselves blue and running at each other with sticks while screaming like banshies. Thanks to Josh I get a chance to put the blue paint away before someone loses an eye. :)
I can't give out my full name because someone else already publishes under it, so Mara is what I use now online as a courtesy to the published author. I doubt that Nathan would like another Nathan Bierma to publish under his name. For some reason DISQUIS also picked up TEAM JESUS when I made one joke on the Tebow thread and it stuck inside DISQUIS. I don''t understand how DISQUIS works.
Josh Larsen, editor
Online identity is related to this topic (how tech enables or not).
Mara: "bitter"?
I typically use my real name or some variant on it, partly because of the reasons you say and I never got real attached to a good pseudonym, but I have also never experienced a targeted campaign of harassment, stalking or abuse, which if that did happen to me would change my habits speedily. It seems any policy designed to reduce bad behavior also has the effect of silencing others who we do not intend to exclude.
For the information world, using a pseudonym in online communication far predates AOL and even the web. Even operating systems like UNIX (and the more modern Linux) have a SUDO where one user can emulate another user.
As for myself, I use pseudonyms most of the places that I'm found to be on the web. Why? Various reasons exist. Sometimes they are silly, sometimes they are not silly, sometimes they are professional. They are never used to be evil or shady.
ThinkChristian allows people to fake their names. So does 4chan. The use of pseudonyms doesn't really determine the quality of the comments. That is typically done by the content of a site and that site's audience.In my spare time run some communications lines for missionaries in foreign anti Christian lands. The people who use my communication channels MUST use pseudonyms, even with their home churches. Why? Because even Christians will turn their own into local governments that desire to kill Christians. So the same thing (persecution) that drove early Christians to retain anonymity still exists today in many parts of the world.
In the end, I don't really think that this is a religious issue, unless you're trying to use anonymity for unethical reasons, which is really the only sin here.
I use a pseudonym
because I consider the internet sort of like a public restroom: you only use
one when absolutely necessary and there’s always swear words on the walls. The internet
is very public and I highly value my privacy. I don’t post any pictures of
myself online and don’t allow my friends to do so either.
It is true, as Allen White points out, that there is no REAL anonymity on the web. Blog administrators can see your url in real time, etc. That is the real protection against serious criminal threats. But, its not a bad thing that I can comment freely without worrying that someone considering a job application will happen to stumble across remarks that prejudice their thinking for irrelevant reasons, when they were only looking to see if I had a criminal record. It used to be a lot more work to find out things that are none of your business. I'd still like people to work for what they get, and weigh how much trouble they want to go to. Besides, after several years, people not in my immediate personal circle, physically, know me by this name. It would be disorienting to give it up.