I got to this link from my Twitter feed, following @AdamSinger: 4chan founder: Mark Zuckerberg is “totally wrong” about online identity. Before I get into the meat of the article, for those who do not know what 4Chan is (and I am assuming that everyone knows Facebook): 4Chan is an image based bulletin board. Users do not need to register and can comment and participate anonymously in any topic. There are global rules that are enforced, and following those rules, you can participate while keeping a relatively anonymous profile. Some topics can get quickly out of the NSFW arena and has led to 4Chan being very controversial.
The article examines comments made by 4Chan founder Christopher Poole at SXSW. He gave his vision for an online community. This is in stark contrast to Zuckerberg’s (Facebook) vision of online communities. Zuckerberg believes in one identity everywhere online to encourage honest and authentic interaction. Poole’s idea is completely the opposite, he believes in more of a anonymous format that allows for a more raw, untarnished interaction. When people do not know your entire history, you are more likely to experiment and not worried about failing and having that follow you around on the web.
Both parties have an interesting point. So what is the middle on this? I am not sure. On one hand, I am very much for accountability online, and having that sense of online citizenship. When people are anonymous, they tend to be more quick to anger, and quicker to lose values and morals when discussing anything. It is like everyone becomes the Incredible Hulk online when someone disagrees with them. If they had to display their true identity, would they continue to act that way?
But anonymity does allow others to start over. if they screwed up in the past, no history follows them around. They are free to start over. It also allows them to take a few chances. It helps heal old wounds they may have sustained from other internet spots. Content, uploads, images, etc all can be redone in a different fashion.
So what is the best way to do this? I am not sure, but I am sure it is somewhere in-between what Zuckerberg believes and what Poole believes. In social marketing, it is key to not let a “human” moment cause a ton of problem. When creating new social content, be courageous, experiment and take calculated risks. If you mess up, take it lightly, and do not get too upset. Do not immediately turn into a raging green monster, but instead take a turn to laugh at yourself. Remember the Red Cross Twitter flap? They handled a “human” moment well, laughed at themselves, and moved on.
What do you think is the better approach, anonymity or exposed identity?
First, let me say that as a Community Manager for Livefyre, being able to read your blog and participate as part of my job only makes work that much sweeter for me. You have some INCREDIBLE content.
Second, I’d like to echo a point you made:
“It is like everyone becomes the Incredible Hulk online when someone disagrees with them. If they had to display their true identity, would they continue to act that way?”
And to answer that question, no, they most likely would not act that way if using their true identity. Too much identity is an issue, but too little is as well. Our founder and CEO jkretch lays out philosophy as a company in an interview with tnw if you’d like to hear it: http://thenextweb.com/video/2011/03/23/is-the-fabric-of-the-internet-built-on-anonymity/
Welcome to Livefyre, and if I can help in anyone please let me know.
@JMattHicks thank you for the comment. Sometimes I find it funny how people act online and act different in real life. Thank you for the link to the interview. I will listen to it.
@StephenHird You bet! And yeah, it’s funny. People feel so empowered…I believe it was Socrates who spoke on if people had the power to be invisible, they would compromise all of their morals. That sentiment seems to relate here as well.