The future internet, no dogs allowed?

Online identity: is authenticity or anonymity more important?
Before Facebook and Google became the megaliths of the web, the most famous online adage was, "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog". It seems the days when people were allowed to be dogs is coming to a close

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/19/online-identity-authenticity-anonymity

The argument (and trend) seems to be that real identities enable more people to trust the web, and thus take part in it :
"Allan believes the benefits of authentic identity outweigh the costs. Facebook and other services with an assurance of security and credibility are more inclusive, and open up the web to new audiences who never would have gone online before, he says. "We're optimists. Facebook enables hundreds of millions of people to express themselves online because they didn't have or know how to use the tools they needed." Facebook, he believes, is a stepping stone to the rest of the web."

My personal position is that while it would be good to have consistent identities online (regular use of same psuedonym, or a limited set of psuedonyms, across platforms) there are many reasons why this should not mean real life identity. The biggest reason is perhaps the dangers people would expose themselves to, from the obvious cases of antagonizing a repressive (or even democratic) systems laws to the more widespread risk of 'peer-to-peer' persecution and mob justice. The internet often brings out the worst in both people and state in how they react to perceived violations of norms and values, and revealing one's true identity would expose one to this. Of course it may be argued that if everyone is identifiable then the risk from trolls etc. is also removed, but while this might temper it, and prevent outright illegal persection, it would not prevent plenty of malign and vindictive behaviour. Furthermore it is a fact that the nastiest people are often the most passionate, and hence most likely to go to the effort to bypass any authentication system (something which will always be possible no matter how well implemented).

Furthermore, on a lower level, but still important, there is the problem of interaction with real world relationships - friends, acquaintances, co-workers employers etc. The sharing and linking of the web means anything one says or does can easily be passed on, taking it out of the intended social circle, and out of context. The result would be that, if real identities were necessitated on services such as blogger, one would have the option of either limiting who can hear to a (hopefully) trustworthy small circle of friends, or resort to comments so bland and innane as to be worthless (and even this might not work, since even a fair and balanced statement might anger a racist or bigotted associate).

It is interesting that such a anonymous-but-traceable approach is supported even in the restrictive regimes of China and South Korea:
"An online identity can be as permanent as an offline one: pseudonymous users often identify themselves in different social networks using the same account name. But because their handles aren't based on real names, they can deliberately delineate their identity accordingly, and reassert anonymity if they wish. Psychologists argue that this is valuable for the development of a sense of who one is, who one can be, and how one fits into different contexts. This kind of activity is allowed even in countries where social network account holders are required to register for a service using a national ID, as in South Korea and China; their online public identities are still fabrications. Even with this explicit link with the state, when users are aware that their activities online are traceable, identity play continues."

This would make it seem that in some ways China is more permissive than Google, since although the state might want to know if you're a dog, it will still let you bark around the virtual park if you want; when it comes to Google+ however, no dogs allowed.

Cutting Edge : anonymous accountability?

Real not reality
I really like Channel 4's documentary series Cutting Edge, even though its subject matter is generally much more mundane than the topics that normally catch my eye (or DVR). Indeed it's probably because its topics are often so seemingly everyday and normal (for example comparing different pubs with the same name or the day of a bin man etc.) that it stands out, because it consistently manages to capture illuminating and interesting facets in seemingly ordinary situations.

As I've often said, I am definitely not a people person, and hate reality TV, but even I am often intrigued and drawn to the unusual individuals that it uncovers in every day life. These are 'real' not 'reality' people, and I have to admit there is something cheering about encountering such characters, and to be impressed with unexpected qualities of the average 'man in the street' (the classic example of which was the binman who quoted socrates in between emptying trash cans). What I think differentiates these people primarily from the type who appear on reality TV, is that in reality TV, they actively want to be on it, and are generally projecting a vain and vacuous image for that purpose, whereas in the documentaries such as Cutting Edge, the participants are simply observed going about their daily lives, and even if there might inevitably be some playing to the camera, it seems minimal.

Who guards the advisors
This weeks episode (Channell 4's webpage is here, and also seems to be available on youtube here) was on the problem (or promise) of the burdgeoning phenomena of online reviewing, and in particular Trip Advisor. On one side were the hotel owners who claimed they were powerless in the face of anonymous and unaccountable damaging reviews, and on the other were examples of the more prolific of trip advisor contributers, self-confessed fanatics who saw it as their duty to inform and warn others. 

Apart from the classic Cutting Edge characters captured (the 'basil fawlty' style hotel manager, or the nerdy reviewer who reads everything he writes out to his grandmother over the telephone) it was an interesting expose of a complicated area which is symbolic of the modern internet age. On the one hand it is definitely a good thing that the service industry can be constantly reviewed, and potential tourists can inform themselves, yet on the other there is the significant power without responsibility wielded by the commentators.

Personally, from the small set of examples in the programme, I would tend to be on the side of the hoteliers, since they were visibly hurt (emotionally and economically) by the reviews they were receiving, and did seem to really want to provide a good service. In addition, some of the reviewers seemed an unlikeable lot, obsessed with finding things wrong, or in the case of one particularly annoying woman, refusing even to debate on camera what she had written. But it was not as clear cut as that, since there was bad behaviour by some owners out of view, and some of the reviewers were cheerful and witty about their work, and more than happy to defend it in person.

What makes this interesting, is that I think it is an illustrative example of how we need to adapt to the new world order of an online culture of commentary. What I think needs to be accepted is that there is no going back to the days of a handful of 'elite' reviewers, and both sides will have to live with this new phenomenon. To do this, what I think is required is education and increased awareness on both sides. The hotel owners need to accept that there can now be instant, widespread and yet possibily groundless publication about any mistakes they make, but also the tourists themselves, who use Trip Advisor, need to factor in that the person making the review may not be reliable or unbiased.

For the hoteliers, now that they know everyone can write a review afterwards, they need to establish feedback mechanisms, or even simply ask, to allow visitors to vent any frustration (if only partly) without resorting to the net.

And for tourists, they have to realise that the type of person who writes a review is more likely to be either the kind of person who makes a hobby out of nitpicking, or was spurred to write by a particularly bad experience, and hence any collection of reviews will probably be biased to the negative. In addition, as studies such as the Stanford Prison Experiment have shown, anonymity is conducive to abusive behaviour, especially the exertion of arbitary power over others, which is exactly the power that online reviewers wield. As these dynamics become so prevalent in our society, we need to become more adept at recognizing and compensating for them.

At the end of the day, what I think is the real problem, is not anonymity, but accountability, or the lack of. Being anonymous may be problematic in how it enables irresponsible behaviour, but it is also advantageous, and not just for the extreme cases of people living in repressive regimes. The presence of malicious 'trolls' on the internet, and the damage they can inflict, means it is often advisable not to reveal ones identity, since online it is so easy to upset someone, and so hard to reconcile with them. Unfortunately there are plenty of (generally young male) people out there who are itching to take offence, and then take revenge (there are some horrific stories of people being smeared paedophiles etc. simply due to a simple onlin spat in a forum).

What I think is needed is some form of anonymous accountability, some way in which identities can be protected, but still held to account. One possible solution for this would be a registered anonymous identity, an online persona which would not be traceable back to one's real world name, but which would be a consistent persona on the internet. The idea would be that all comments and online activity would be made under the same psuedonym, allowing the history of what that person did to be seen, and judged. Of course this would not prevent malicious behaviour, since the person would still be untouchable, but it would encourage consistency, and reduce one-off attacks.

The main problem would be how to encourage people to actually maintain the same online identity, and not just switch and change, but one mechanism for this would be to have some central site which allocates these names, and restricts how many/often it does so, and for it to become appealing to have this particular name. For example an online newspaper might allow anonymous commenting, but only with registered names, and ensure one per use, with (appealable) banning for misuse. And of course the ideal version of this would be one (or a few) well respected social network sites issuing names, which would then be accepted by various other organizations (e.g. if a site facelessbook issued reliable usernames, then all newspapers might allow anonymous commenting under its login name).

The point is if a person's online history is available, then not only will they be induced to be consistent, and maybe think more about what they're doing, but also it will allow others to judge them by their previous actions. If someone only makes miserable reviews or indulges in trolling on various websites, then one would know to discount their comments. Similarly if someone DOESN'T use this mechanism, then maybe they've something to hide, or are at least not prepared to stand by what they said, so why listen to them.

There could even be things like an online 'reputation' credit rating service, whereby if you wanted to check up on a particular user's history, a web site would search the internet for all postings (all travel review sites, all newspapers) etc. to show what kind of person they were. It is important to note that this would not compromise privacy, people would 'opt in' by using the same name, but it could be setup in a way that most normal people would want to. And of course there ultimate identity would be secure (although maybe some protection would be needed to prevent indirect identification, e.g. google might well be able to link real named gmail accounts with IPs posting under particular pseudonyms).

My basic point is this phenomenon of online commentary is here to stay, and we as the technical generation need to work out new mechanisms to preserve the potential and avoid the pitfalls.