The whole world of "Identity" on the internet is kind of new and still a bit blurry to me. But it's one that I'm increasingly interested in, because my own forays into the online world leave me wondering whether I'm being smart, strategic, and cautious enough.
I know many people who are much more "out there" than I am in terms of having a presence online, but over the past two years -- which kind of marks the period of time in which "social software" tools have really taken off -- I have really extended my reach, and my presence, online. I suspect many others have done the same, and I think it's worth taking some time to educate ourselves about what that means and what is prudent.
So there's a lot of talk out there about "identity management systems", and I'm trying to wade my way through some of it and get a better understanding. One person I have stumbled across is Ben Laurie, who writes about identity management in his blog. He proposes three laws that should govern an identity management system - Verifiable, Minimal and Unlinkable. In a later post, he explains that his
"laws are all about allowing people to choose what they reveal and when they reveal it; to create multiple personas and not have what one does reflect on the others. It seems to me that this is merely reflecting what people do in meatspace: your colleagues at work don’t need to know what you do in your bedroom, or what you had for dinner. Why should this be any different on the ‘net?"
Interesting stuff. If I'm understanding him correctly, I think it would be great if this were the case. For instance, I have a pretty wide variety of interests, and participate in online communities related to most of those interests. I don't perceive too much conflict between them, and I don't mind too much if people know that I am both an aspiring geek and an avid practicer of yoga, for example. But I do believe that we should be able to exist and participate online, in all our contradictions and complexities, without wondering whether others will perceive confict in our interests, or worrying that our hobbies will cause us to lose professional credibility.
If you're at all interested in exploring issues of online identity, I know that Kaliya Hamlin, who I met at Web of Change, writes extensively about these issues at http://identitywoman.net.
It's about Voice, not information
Wed, 2006-01-18 22:18 — Christopher (not verified)I was just a bystander in an online blow-up that I believe was rooted in the ability of the internet to minimize the usual boxes of normal identity. This was a group interested in the Vermont Rail System, our homegrown with-it and innovative regional railroad. Now in railroading there is a long honored basic conflict between operating men (gender intended) and marketing managers. Neither has much use for the other. However the roles are clear and behavioral expectations and protections established (thanks be, in part, to unions). However this situation arouse from a certain assumption of equality that matches what I’ve seen in all successful online communities. Rather than role, it was voice that was honored, and contribution. The trouble happened when one hardened union guy started reacting in his off-line role . . .which was completely inappropriate for a setting of equality where respect is the glue that lets what one says be more important than who one is. The resulting flame war, an expression of the larger marketing-operations conflict, was enabled by the equality because it allowed all the participants to react (using their old scripts) to what was said (enabled by equality). Off-line, everyone would have known everybody else’s identity and there would have been a more agile dance around the established roles.
Of-course flaming has been the shadow side of on-line community from the beginning, and everyone has always said that it’s the anonymous nature of the internet that causes it. Anonymity is another word for not having a strong identity.
Now in this case, both men know much about the other, including their role in the industry and the kinds of ideologies they carried within each role. And yet, their interaction hardly considered the other’s identity, even though they knew it. No social networking software would have changed that.
I can’t help thinking that this is a particularly male situation, and that taking an interest in another’s identity, is a part of having more developed relationship skills. So, in the end, software can’t make others take an interest in our true self, whether it be in a profile or in our heart.