Identity on the Internet

I've been reading an entry on Jon Mitchell's blog on ReadWriteWeb. He makes some interesting points about identity. Here is one quote that I thought was really interesting:

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."

He's quoting Chris Poole, an Internet entrepreneur. Chris doesn't present this prismatic nature of identity as a bad thing either. It's just the way things are. Offline, we act differently depending who we are with and where we are. The same applies to life online. We have differently identities and maybe that's okay.

He also cites Facebook and Google as threats to our multiple identities. I had never thought of that. I had always considered Facebook to be one way to create a new identity, to present a new "you" to the world. He talked about how Google Plus (he and Poole aren't really fans of Google Plus) does not tolerate pseudonyms and will delete accounts with fake names. He and Poole seemed to think that our power of creating our own identities is in danger. Maybe it is. 

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/4chans_chris_poole_facebook_google_are_doing_it_wr.php

Dickens and Identity. And Zoolander.

Who am I? Zoolander was not the first person to ask the question and will not be the last. I talked about identities in my first blog post, but I’m going to talk about it again. Identity has always been important. Society is built upon it. In older societies (we’re talking hundreds of years ago), where you were born defined who you were, what you did, what your potential was, how much money you made, and who you associated with.  Today, not so much. And if there is still some kind of correlation, we don’t like to talk about it in America. Because we’re all middle class.

Back to identity. In today’s society, the Internet has given people the means to reinvent themselves countless times through various means. There are roleplay games and virtual reality games. Even Twitter and Facebook give people the opportunity to present themselves to the world in a very selective manner (thought we could probably all name some people we wish were more selective).

Dickens’ Our Mutual Friend facilitates the same kind of selection. Characters make and hide identities. Fascinating Mr. Fledgeby and the Lammles use their deceitful identifies commit fraud and abuse their associates. They manipulate others for their own gain. Productive, yes, but not necessarily moral.

Other characters use their identities, or lack thereof, for good. The stoic Secretary John Rokesmith hides the fact that he is in fact the murdered dust pile heir John Harmon and also the person-of-suspicion Julius Hanford. He navigates life as secretary to the man who inherited his (John Harmon’s) money in order to help the man manage the money and for some other reasons. Lizzie Hexam completely disappears, essentially wiping out her identity (in London at least) in order to protect the man she loves.

Many of the characters of Our Mutual Friend are asking the question “Who am I?” And if not that question, then they are asking, “Who are you?,” to at least one other character in their society.

Pinterest Collaboration

Pinterest Collaboration

Pinterest is one of the newer online communities that has become really popular in the last year. It was really big with my friends last year. I could always tell when one of them when on Pinterest binge. And while it is kind of a social thing, I feel like it doesn’t allow you to connect to other people necessarily. What Pinterest does best is facilitate the sharing of ideas at an accelerated pace and in a very visual way.

However, I’ve recently discovered another feature on Pinterest that facilitates collaboration. I realized that you could create boards that you can create boards with other people. This allows multiple people to add pins to the same board. I created a board that a share with my little sister and we pin inside jokes and such. Since my little sister is the last sibling living at home, it gives us another avenue to connect with each other.

Even Pinterest is finding ways to bring people together.

The Newschoolers

I’ve been looking at the variety of social networks on the Internet and the kind of communities that they try to attract. Earlier this week, I stumbled upon a sports community called Sportsvite. I had never seen a sports community online before. It had options to register your sports groups and sports teams. It also had statuses, like Facebook, that show up on the community’s feed, which can announce anything from a game that still needs players to your desire to find people to go hiking or skiing with. It doesn’t seem to have caught on in Provo. There aren’t very many members. But I like the idea. It gives us yet another avenue on which to connect with others.

So, I thought I would try it out. I registered today. I’m mainly looking for people to ski with. In the past, I have tried connecting with both on and offline ski clubs with the goal of meeting new people to ski with. Neither have been very successful, but I found out later that the clubs were actually in the process of becoming inactive. To be honest, I don’t have that much hope for meeting anyone on Sportsvite simply because there aren’t that many people on it.

I can see perhaps why it isn’t quite so popular. Sports are very physical in both nature and association. Maybe it just hasn’t made the transition. Or maybe it’s in the process of making the transition.  Or maybe its just the website itself isn't very effective at what its trying to do.

Another newer online community designed for skiers and snowboarders alike is Newschoolers.com. It seems like a fun site, maybe a little too hardcore for me. They have posts of the latest news in the winter sport world. They have chat forums. You can also join a “cult,” which is the Facebook equivalent of a group. I’d love to join a telemark group, but I’m not sure how I feel requesting to join a cult. Maybe that’s just a sign that I’m not a true newschooler yet.  Using words that most of society associates negatively—now that’s living on the edge. Which is what the Newschoolers were going for, no doubt. 

Public Parts, by Jeff Jarvis

In this book, Jeff Jarvis writes as an advocate for the public culture the Internet has fostered. While at times I would call him overly optimistic, he highlights ways that the Internet’s culture of publicness has positively affected our lives. He discusses the meaning of public versus private, what the terms meant in the past, and what they mean now.

While I do not agree with everything he writes (I tend to err on the side of caution and, yes, privacy), I can see that many of his points are valid. He takes care to acknowledge the negative aspects of the Internet, but he gives plenty of examples illustrating how publicness has helped improve our relationships, has changed the way businesses run, and has enabled and empowered people all over the world. I’ll admit, some of the examples he gives are pretty impressive and persuasive. And some of his points weren’t lost on me. Reading his book has inspired me to try more of this publicness thing. I’m making more of an effort to be public on the Internet.

I appreciate the way he writes. He promotes an honest and open publicness and I can tell he believes it, because his writing is frank, blunt, and very honest. He goes further than the Internet in many instances, questioning the moral mores of society and how that affects how we react. He talks about the history of the public vs. private debate and he discusses the ethics of publicness.

All in all, I feel that this book is a good, optimistic read that will make you more willing to see the public Internet culture in a positive light. I didn’t agree with everything he had to say, but I agree that this book is a rewarding and thought-provoking read.

Don't Have to Fake Your Death These Days

Right now I am about halfway through Charles Dickens’ Our Mutual Friend. I was reading my daily 50-page allotment today and stumbled across this interesting quote talking about the main character’s various identities that he had assumed:

“So John Harmon died, and Julius Handford disappeared, and John Rokesmith was born.” (362)

I had to smile to myself. These days you don’t necessarily need to fake your death to create a new identity (although I just recently heard of a case where a man in New York faked his own death to move down to Florida. Apparently people still do that kind of thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/04/nyregion/wife-says-long-island-man-once-feared-drowned-faked-his-death.html)

Nowadays it’s much easier to make a new identity for yourself, even multiple identities, on the Internet. People are not necessarily who they say they are. They are whoever they want to be. It’s easier to get away with. There is a bigger sense of anonymity on the Internet. There is less accountability.

People often unintentionally create different identities for themselves on various websites. They use different usernames for websites they become members on. They associate with different people on each website. Using GooglePlus’s terminology, they have different “circles” at each new website. They have an opportunity to present a different self to each circle. Reinventing yourself, even if only in a virtual reality, has never been easier.