Live data from Hacker News

4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

readwriteweb.com

71–80 of 157 posts

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#71
post #2

We present ourselves differently in different contexts, and that's key to our creativity and self-expression. "It's not 'who you share with,' it's 'who you share as,'" Poole told us. "Identity is prismatic." moot just kinda blew my mind. And it makes total sense. I'd go so far as to say it's almost painfully obvious once it's pointed out to you. I hope someone's got it on video and posts it somewhere.

Is there some difference between this and what Danah Boyd et al. were saying 8 years ago regarding "Faceted Identity"? http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/danah/thesis/

Rhetoricians have actually been talking about this for more than four thousand years. Everything's performance.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#72

Identity is prismatic, but the faces of that prism aren't disjointed. They're all part of the same whole and for this reason I'm not sure his metaphor works with his point about how we present ourselves differently in different contexts. I've always used my real name on everything I do since I got in trouble in high school for being part of a group prank under a pseudonym. My father told me that unless I want what I…

unless I want what I do to be associated with my real name, I just probably shouldn't do it This sounds an awful lot like "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to hide" to me.

I interpret it more like "If you wouldn't want your mother to see you do it, then you probably shouldn't."

For what it's worth, while I absolutely love my civil liberties and freedoms, I do believe in accountability for one's actions. If I say something indefensible against a minority group, I believe that I should be ready to bear the consequences of my racism. I can either defend my actions with an intelligent argument or I can't. I shouldn't be able to just say "Oh. That was somebody else."

On the flip side, if I'm arguing for a controversial idea, then I will expect people to take the argument as insincere if I'm not willing to attach my name to it.

Anybody can say something anonymously, in the same way that anybody can pirate music. The people who are purposefully exercising civil disobedience are the ones I respect, whether or not I agree with their cause. That said, very few people actually practice civil disobedience. They download music and say 'Damn the man' wherever they can, but what actual GOOD does that do?

And just before anybody attacks me for trying to take away their right to privacy, I fully understand and support that it is our right, generally, and would never knowingly support/elect/fund or petition anyone trying to take that right away. But for me, personally, I think the bigger statement is always going to come from someone who is willing to risk their reputation to make a statement that's unpopular.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#75

Chris came up with a great metaphor to explain online identity. Most of the people leading major product decisions in this area either have very common names or are already famous. But for the rest of us, using our real name online means that anyone who meets us can discover our online identity with a google search. When I "meet" someone online (such as reading a comment he/she wrote on HN) I really don't care what h…

Google cares because it allows them to correlate all that juicy information you give them online with all those things you interact with offline. Together, these will combine into more targeted advertising (or "direct-to-individual marketing").

There is a HUGE financial incentive to force people into using their real names.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#76
The problem with the multiple-vs-unique-ID debate is that people tend to ignore what these systems are really built for: data mining, behavioural analysis, targeted advertising etc.

Users will agree with moot that separate identities are better and safer, but this is not how the real FB/Google customers see it; advertisers and marketeers want to know that user-A is an engineer AND loves cooking AND has a pet AND goes on 4chan.org/tv, not just one OR the others.

That's why FB/Google try so hard to reconcile all your activities under one ID: to better represent the unique intersection of interests that will be resold to marketeers. Any feature they implement to "manage your faceted identity" will only give you an illusion of separation, and will inevitably link all your activities anyway, because that's necessary for their business model.

Note that this is not a rant (I use FB and G+ every day), I just think this point tends to be overlooked when talking about "social" websites, almost like it was not polite to point out where these businesses make their money.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may want to visit Mr. Poole's first website, 4chan, which requires anonymous posting on some areas but allows a limited identity in others (through tripcodes). The effect of anonymous posting on content quality is immediately apparent.

I will play the devils advocate here... I've browsed 4chan every now and then during the last year I will totally disagree with you. If anything, the post quality is deceiving, not immediately apparent. I couldn't understand at first, but then it became obvious. 99% of the posts are striped from any real content, they are irrelevant single words, offenses, f*ked up puctures, funny pictures, etc. But then, in 1% of th…

If you have a totally new way of looking at a subject, if you expose it to a place where your identity is valued, you will for sure get it damaged. So everybody refrains from posting potentially controversial opinions.

That's the part that scares me the most. In a world where everything you say is directly associated with you and indexabke forever in a search engine, people will have every reason to fear stepping out of mainstream opinions. The majority will become more beige. The minority will become more extreme. There will be less in between.

I prefer my world more interesting.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#78
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some difference between this and what Danah Boyd et al. were saying 8 years ago regarding "Faceted Identity"? http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/danah/thesis/

Only reading the 118 page thesis' abstract? Probably not. Kudos to her for writing it, and you linking it; I've saved it for the weekend. But my point wasn't that "it's an original thought that he's had and no one has ever considered it before!" just "I was ignorant of this exact problem until it was pointed out to me. Then it became evident." But, maybe I'm just reading that as a little more antagonistic than intend…

No worries. I've actually probably only looked at the pictures. SecureId has some good ones.

http://smg.media.mit.edu/projects/SecureId/

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#79
post #76

The problem with the multiple-vs-unique-ID debate is that people tend to ignore what these systems are really built for: data mining, behavioural analysis, targeted advertising etc. Users will agree with moot that separate identities are better and safer, but this is not how the real FB/Google customers see it; advertisers and marketeers want to know that user-A is an engineer AND loves cooking AND has a pet AND goes…

I'm not sure why Google would care to know those things. The most profitable form of advertising is a direct search. "Bears tickets" is advertising gold. Joe liking the Bears on Facebook is not on the same level. Google might get incremental value on having the additional data but I don't think it's worth the reputation hit.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#80
post #9

They may be doing it wrong from a psychology perspective, but seem to be doing fine from a business perspective.

Google and Facebook didn't get it wrong, they just don't want pseudonyms or at least limit each person so they can conquer/monetize the identity space. Two examples, (1) online commerce trust Google and Facebook identities sufficiently to allow them to purchase, similarly some poll sites can trust those identities, i.e., a single person can't vote a X times but creating X fake identities.
Post reply on HN