steve's blog

thoughts on technology, business and strategy

Search

How Facebook is Killing Your Authenticity

Facebook

We all know that the delineation between public and private was eroded by Facebook a long time ago. Over. Done. But now Facebook’s sheer scale is pushing it in a new direction, one that encroaches on your authenticity.

 

Facebook is no longer a social network. They stopped being one long before the movie. Facebook is really a huge broadcast platform. Everything that happens between its walls is one degree away from being public, one massive auditorium filled with everyone you’ve ever met, most of whom you haven’t seen or spoken to in years.

 

Last week a bunch of massive sites across the web, including TechCrunch, adopted Facebook commenting. The integration of the formatting and fonts is so strong that when you're reading comments you actually feel like you are on Facebook, not a tech focused vertical site.

 

This latest push by Facebook to tie people to one identity across the interwebs is very troublesome.

 

The problem with tying internet-wide identity to a broadcast network like Facebook is that people don’t want one normalized identity, either in real life, or virtually.

 

People yearn to be individuals. They want to be authentic. They have numerous different groups of real-life friends. They stylize conversations. They are emotional and have an innate need to connect on different levels with different people. This is because humans are born with an instinctual desire to understand the broader context of their surroundings and build rapport, a social awareness often called emotional intelligence.

 

In the beginning, Facebook catered to this instinct we all have. But FB in its current form, a big graph of people who may or may not know anything about one another, does not.

 

And forcing people to comment  and more broadly speaking to log-on  with one identity puts a massive stranglehold on our very nature. I'm not too worried about FB Comments in isolation, but the writing is on the wall: all of this off-site encroachment of the Facebook graph portends where FB is really going in pushing one identity. And a uniform identity defies us. 

 

Face it, authenticity goes way down when people know their 700 friends, grandma, and 5 ex-girlfriends are tuning in each time they post something on the web.

 

Don’t believe me? Go to TechCrunch and count the comments on last week’s posts. Better yet, go read the comments. They suck. They’re sterile and neutered.  

 

The nature of commenting on the web needs to feel organic and fluid, just like it does in real life.  And even anonymous if necessary, though that’s not at the core of my argument.

 

My main contention is that the off-network spread of Facebook’s identity graph is parasitic for the web. Now – just to join the best technology community on the internet (TechCrunch) – we need to live inside Facebook walls.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn’t surprise me why this is happening. The carrot here for content sites is clear: even with a lower volume of comments, the potential viral effects and CTRs are something parent sites like AOL are surely extrapolating, based on their recent manifesto to boost reach, drive traffic, and maximize page views (though I'd argue they would perform much better on mainstream sites like HuffPo or TMZ than a niche vertical like TC, which your friends are less likely to be aware of). 

 

There's a pretty straightforward reason why FB is valued at an astonishing $75B, and it's all about them forming a reciprocal feedback loop between Facebook.com and other sites so that you can be targeted. 

 

But for such a massively social company, Facebook’s insistence that you have one identity across the web is both short-sighted and asinine, and people I talk to are starting to realize this.

 

Fact is, one social network will not rule the web... People are simply way too social to allow that.

 

100 comments
Mar 06, 2011
colorwarfare said...
I completely agree! In fact, TechCrunch's recent deployment of the Facebook commenting has guaranteed that I will not be commenting there.

One interesting point that you made that I'll take further is that Facebook absolutely is not longer a social network. Even Zuckerberg has said that he wants to become more foundational and "background" with respect to the Internet. That, of course, opens the market of what they did before (and currently no longer do), which is cater to actual social networks. New networks, with a stronger foundation and much of the hard work done already, can arise and go further than Facebook did before.

http://www.colorwarfare.com is a social news game site that is built on top of Facebook and Twitter, but it allows users to take on a different identity at the same time. Users compete in one of two teams to get the most social recognition for their posts.

Mar 06, 2011
phiberoptik said...
in order to have your authenticity infringed upon, that would mean you would have to use your actual personal information on Facebook - right? I saw the issues with social media coming a long way off and have never used my personal information. Following some simple rules on these sites has allowed me to maintain some reasonable coverage, without allowing people to easily search for me.

I've seen a lot of these developments coming years ago. As soon as these social media people start seeing the big dollar signs, it's no longer about individuality or the original vision of "community". It becomes an exercise in harvesting users information for more money. Now it's about how Facebook can push the monetization of their site to the limits. Giving more users more access to other sites using their login is exactly where this is going. It allows people to let their guard down and feed more data back to Facebook, who in turns takes it all and figures out a way to make money off it. d

Mar 06, 2011
Corey Rollins said...
I have to admit I giggled at the fact this article allowed me to post a comment via FB connect. Good read though thanks.
Mar 06, 2011
gilzino said...
Nicely put. One ring to rule them all? Maybe for Tolkien, not for my social graphs. Yes, FB, graphs, plural. FB prioritizing revenue over users, the beginning of the end:
http://goo.gl/6tG6c
Mar 06, 2011
n m liked this post.
Mar 06, 2011
Why not just comment without logging into Facebook? Personally, I do NOT want FB linked with everything and I limit how much freedom I give FB. But I am not the majority, not even close. Those that are not net savvy will not see the problem, nor understand the ramifications.
Mar 06, 2011
Scott Scanlon said...
Most people I know put Facebook squarely in the friends and family column. They don't want to mix these anymore than they have to. Until Facebook finds a way to break your friends/contacts into niches or subgroups and does this in a very secure way it will always be broke.
Mar 06, 2011
Alister Cameron said...
To commenter Corey Rollins...

There is a massive difference between offering someone authentication via Facebook and having Facebook entirely own the commenting system.

That you missed this crucial point suggests you've not understood it at all...

Notice that "Post comment to Facebook" option below (if you authenticated via FB?)... that's NOT there on blogs where Facebook runs it... you've no choice. And certainly there's no option to authenticate via Twitter or Google (at least, yet).

-Alister

Mar 06, 2011
mtraven said...
Amen. I made some similar points here and here last year...the problem only gets worse the more people adopt social networking. The time is ripe for a multiple-identity solution.
Mar 06, 2011
Judi Window said...
I wanted to "Like" your post and was trying to comment but couldn't find the little thumbs up??? What should I do?
Mar 06, 2011
sailfish said...
While loss of authenticity is certainly important, the enabling of Facebook comment aggregation is more worrisome. Not only will all comments be FBs -- forgive the pun -- ("All Your Comments Are Belong To US"), it makes user preference tracing so much easier.
Mar 06, 2011
briancarroll said...
Agree with the problem you identify, but i think the solution lies more in granular distribution networks (friends, co-workers, industry peers, etc). People are hitting the app wall and don't want to recreate their social graph again and again in new services - so facebook is filling a real market need by creating one graph and licensing it to platform participants.

I agree with mtraven that solving this means a very consumer-friendly multiple-identity solution. Perhaps Facebook should have persona modes - "business me" "family me" "friends me" etc, with different colors/fonts/look/feel so that you know which persona you're in, and what privacy level to assume.

Mar 06, 2011
Steven Blatt said...
I don't know. To me there is nothing more authentic than a person that is at all times... their-self. Good, Bad, whatever. No one should want to or be expected to alter their behavior in any way, due to the stresses of peer or social acquaintance pressures.

You know those people in your life that you are most confident in...? They tend to be people possessing only a single identity.

Mar 07, 2011
zaqqus said...
I understand radical transparency is meant to build trust, but what is so abnormal and untrustworthy about belonging to different social circles with contrasting cultural norms? What is acceptable in one group might be offensive to another, etc.

Facebook just lumps all social circles together, every person you've ever met monitoring you all at once. Come on, that's too much. You can't be all things to all people.

Just because someone likes a bit of privacy, that doesn' make someone less trustworthy, any more than putting up a meticulously detailed profile on Facebook makes someone more trustworthy. The Zuckerberg Doctrine does not work.

So yes, I agree. Good article!

Mar 07, 2011
rskin11 said...
This is absurd; it's not about authenticity, in any event. When was it un-authentic to be yourself, to have to speak in your own name? Is scribbling on bathroom walls the kind of "authenticity" that's sought? Scobleizer did a nice number on this argument yesterday: http://scobleizer.com/2011/03/07/the-real-authenticity-killer-and-an-aside-ab...
Mar 07, 2011
Euro Popped said...
I 100% agree with your post. Thank you for saying what needs to be said. Don't trust FB and never will.
Mar 07, 2011
Morgaine Swann said...
I noticed this problem first on Twitter, where the sides of my multifaceted personality often clash with each other. There's no way to target my tweets so that only one group of friends gets a particular post, so if you follow me for politics, you'll also get my posts about True Blood and a few other guilty pleasures. Facebook is becoming that way to an extent, and I do wish it were possible to use more than one account per email and log-in. I also think FaceBook is missing a golden opportunity to embrace the fan world who are trying to use it for RP games. There are some copyright issues with that, but for the amount of traffic it would drive, it seems to me like they'd make more effort to work with them - or invent another site for that specific purpose that is tethered to FB in some way.
Mar 07, 2011
lilendian said...
I agree, Steve. There is authenticity when one is being candid and unafraid of the consequences of one's speech. Being anonymous lets one be authentic in the current context, the current dialog, the moment.

Requiring one's current speech to be forever tied to the larger log of everything ever said online, and made available to everyone in one's social circle (i.e. Facebook) has a chilling effect on the statements we make.

You don't have this ability to broadcast and log all your speech in the real world, and forcing it on people in the online world is a very unnatural thing. I hope more people realize the downsides to this type of convergent identity.

Mar 07, 2011
seanfish said...
Somewhat disagree, and @phiberoptik has it right.

Your rights management rests with you. Everything has the capacity to affect your "authenticity", if such a thing is anything more than as a convenient-but-inaccurate way of describing things.

With every in every forum we make a conscious decision what we share. I assume the vast auditorium, and so should anybody else. Sure there are people for whom "facebook is dangerous" is a useful conversation - but they are the people about whom you are talking, not to whom in this forum - if my interpretation is correct.

How did "microsoft is bad" or "google is bad" help us when they were the main thing to bash?

It's not facebook, it's the singularity using facebook to create itself. Just another point of view.

Mar 07, 2011
Eric Kennedy said...
Steve, I agree with your argument that a lot of people on TechCrunch appreciated the anonymity of the previous comment system and the new system will lead to self-censorship. It's great that Scoble has the balls to denounce his boss' church, but I didn't even feel comfortable telling my colleagues that I was gay even 5 years after I came out to my friends and family.

I'm the CTO of a "TripAdvisor for cosmetic treatments" site that has Facebook connect, but only 5% of our users choose to use it even though the majority of them have a Facebook account. People want the _feeling_ of anonymity even when they register with the same email account that's attached to their Facebook (which enables cross-referencing.)

People don't want to be reminded that privacy isn't what it was prior to the Internet. Personally, I think the new transparency is a good thing, but it takes some getting used to. BTW, I love the irony of a post denouncing Facebook comments using Facebook connect for identification.

Mar 07, 2011
I think the system is not a fatal blow to authenticity-- it's more like a speedbump.
Mar 07, 2011
Vivek RaJ said...
I think Facebook , needs to stop putting all of them people in one single bucket , there are acquittances and there are friends , what fun in putting all of them as friends

and my comment on the last week dinner is only relavent to guys with whom I had not 200 odd people in my list , it needs to honor the Group culture and ability to make conversation in groups without working on shall I post this for wider audience .

Mar 07, 2011
Robert Scoble said...
I disagree with your points here, but I needed more than a comment to make them, so I wrote an entire blog post: http://scobleizer.com/2011/03/07/the-real-authenticity-killer-and-an-aside-ab...
Mar 07, 2011
Guerson said...
i think Robert Scoble just proved you wrong and I believe him more than any other anonymous user that comment on your post! =)
Mar 07, 2011
Mihai Brabete said...
I think the system is not a fatal blow to authenticity-- it's more like a speedbump.
www.torrejonconsultores.es
Mar 07, 2011
Maxwell F. said...
I guess one day FB fans will just give up & get out of FB.
Mar 07, 2011
Maxwell F. liked this post.
Mar 07, 2011
farleysmith said...
FB is the CB radio of today. Stay tuned for the next fad.
Mar 07, 2011
caldoc said...
I couldn't agree more farleysmith...If it doesn't dramatically change, it will go the way of CB radio
Mar 07, 2011
Andy Hairgrove said...
Forget authenticity...that is but one minor issue. The bigger issue is that most of my Facebook friends don't give two shits about this comment that I am typing right now (and yours don't either by the way). But, on this mini-social network we call "Steve's Blog", the odds of someone giving shit are pretty high. So, if I have something to say about his issue I am more inclined to say it here than anywhere else. Cross-posting it to my Twitter and Facebook streams, for the most part, just creates noise for my friends and followers.
Mar 07, 2011
kennethrluna said...
I can't deny though that I'd much rather read comments that contribute to the conversation rather than create noise and clutter. By posting up names, people are inherently putting at risk their personal brand by commenting which isn't necessarily a bad idea. I hate having to dig through all the mindless nonsensical comments to actually get to the insightful ones. There is no commitment into what is said. I can diss your mother and pollute the comment chain by using an alias and who would know. Yes, you can go out of your way, track me down by getting my IP address, but do you care that much?

Funny thing is though that Facebook organizes and streamlines your comments when you are on other sites, but once you are back on Facebook.com, it's a mindless information overdrive free-for-all. I guess if you are going to be cluttered by "crap", Facebook would much rather have you do it on their page and no one else.

Mar 07, 2011
gamepad said...
Facebook is the Devil.
I hope will go bankrupt and will close :)
Mar 07, 2011
smokinjoe said...
so... people are going to finally be responsible for their asinine comments instead of hiding behind a wall of anonymity while they spew hatred and ignorance?

about goddamn time.

Mar 07, 2011
Derek Martin said...
"Authenticity" - I do not think it means what you think it means. Nothing can kill your authenticity. You can give it up, or you can keep it. Either way, it's your choice.

Authenticity means always being exactly who you are, and speaking your mind REGARDLESS of who's listening.

If you want to say something, but you're not willing to say it to everyone you know, then you're acting in an in-authentic way.

Facebook didn't impose that on you. That's you not dealing with your own "issues".

Mar 07, 2011
AnitaNelson said...
This is the best I have heard this explained yet~! I have been developing a new homogeneous version of myself ever since I became more active on Facebook. I've blended my business and personal selves so seamlessly, I hardly ever feel like I'm just having fun online anymore =( I will not friend my family members on Facebook. That's a dimension I'm not ready to take on.

There is some competitiveness in business, too, that threatens to reveal your suppliers when you like their site for discounts, etc. It doesn't matter who imposed it, it is here and we have to deal with it now. I have opted to dilute everything with high numbers, in hopes that when I speak, it should be about business therefore helping with the old numbers game.

But I sure miss fun.... When you work from home and work where you play online, it's getting harder to wind down than ever.

Mar 07, 2011
AnitaNelson said...
This is the best I have heard this explained yet~! I have been developing a new homogeneous version of myself ever since I became more active on Facebook. I've blended my business and personal selves so seamlessly, I hardly ever feel like I'm just having fun online anymore =( I will not friend my family members on Facebook. That's a dimension I'm not ready to take on.

There is some competitiveness in business, too, that threatens to reveal your suppliers when you like their site for discounts, etc. It doesn't matter who imposed it, it is here and we have to deal with it now. I have opted to dilute everything with high numbers, in hopes that when I speak, it should be about business therefore helping with the old numbers game.

But I sure miss fun.... When you work from home and work where you play online, it's getting harder to wind down than ever.

Mar 07, 2011
AnitaNelson said...
@smokinjoe It's not just that trolls will be toned down. i find myself revising comments all the time now, based on who might see them.
Mar 07, 2011
Facebook Comments: First Impressions http://goo.gl/fb/OwrRk
Mar 07, 2011
technologyIO said...
i've admired Mike Arrington and Techcrunch for years.
Without a facebook account (i deleted it), I do hope they return to disqus commenting.
#dickface
Mar 07, 2011
eegilbert said...
I'm working on exactly this problem with my site Circular: http://circular.io
Mar 07, 2011
Yury Tsukerman liked this post.
Mar 07, 2011
scottawilkins said...
You folks need to get a life. Facebook is a SOCIAL site, not a PRIVATE site. Don't you understand the basic concept of the difference between social and private? Facebook is NOT the only site that is SOCIAL. But now, to dive into it with this level of depth just shows that you all have no clue. Sad.
Mar 07, 2011
Yury Tsukerman said...
LOL @socttawilkins, proving that persistant identity won't stop some people... well, myself included.

TC itself addressed this topic: http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/06/techcrunch-facebook-comments/

Mar 07, 2011
smokinjoe said...
@anitanelson - I don't understand what's wrong with revising comments. I feel everyone should be responsible for their actions. I get the fact that there has always been somewhat of a separation between 'personalities' that may be used at home vs. at work vs. with friends, but that was a lot of the time possible because of the fact that those interactions took place in nearly mutually exclusive locations.

While I realize that it won't be fair, especially with Businesses more and more trying to monitor what we all do out of work, this battle with always exist - and truly, instead of complaining about Facebook doing it, if people are really turned off, then do what our parents used to do:

Boycott Facebook.

Frankly, it may not be the easiest thing in the world to do, and personally, if the Interwebs really wants to be a reputable medium of entertainment, then I believe there there needs to be [way] more accountability for all the asshattery that goes on. If that means people may choose their words more carefully in certain situations, I have no issues with that.

Mar 07, 2011
kaunov liked this post.
Mar 07, 2011
ximagin said...
I'd leave a comment but I don't have a twitter or facebook account. seriously?
Mar 07, 2011
Warren Whitlock said...
How could anyone think they know what's best for all of us? Saying Facebook is wrong is as bad as them trying to force us to use comments. Neither is true. People want to communicate nd will use whatever works best for them.. not what you tell them.
Mar 07, 2011
offbeatmammal said...
my biggest problem with Facebook is the flattening of the social graph - and the broadcast nature of their platform (internally to their site and externally as a commenting platform) is reinforcing that.

I have my group of tech friends who may or may not care about what I say on TechCrunch (and may or may not agree, but that just sparks more debate) but the mainly non-intersecting selection of friends I have from the Mustang community don't give a damn about what I think about some random startup in Boise and, more importantly, I don't want the cross-contamination to impact their perception of me.

In the real world it's possible to have a much more complicated collection of friends - groups who may have no knowledge of each other, or where any intermingling is organic and probably outside your direct influence. The only way to simulate that in Facebook is the added complication and pain of multiple profiles and ignore their terms and conditions.

Great case in point.... a gay friend of mine was "outed" to all his Facebook friends (many of whom didn't know about his preference) thanks to a wall post that had widespread visibility. Because he couldn't segregate friends and control visibility by default being on FB has caused him quite a lot of pain... imagine now how that influences someones desire to comment via a FB mechanism on a public site and reveal your thoughts far and wide...

Mar 07, 2011
pheedbacktweet said...
Yes we are bringing authenticity to life!

Visit http://www.Pheedback.com - It allows people to post permanent feedback anonymously to any person or company and broadcast it across social networking tools.

We just launched, hoping to see what happens with this little social experiment. By making it anonymous or transparent and leaving the people in control, we should see a more authentic view from people. (theoretically).

Mar 07, 2011
SocialThinkerTX said...
I think you give people too much and not enough credit.

People adapt quickly but they're lazy. Think of all the technological advances in the past 5000, 2000, 200 and 20 years...and how easily we adapt. And most of those actually end up being "life improvement" advances, aka laziness.

Facebook, social media, is just that...new technology that many people are adopting b/c it's easy and not all humans want to be unique, just paid attention to.

I think the only "anti" Facebook that's reasonable is no Facebook. The actual unique people will go out in the world and be unique, because as social media continues to become more prevalent and easier to access, to be unique will be to not be on social media, to be the minority.

I'm on a goal to reduce my "friends" considerably first to see if that will make it feel better, if not, then I guess close it.

Mar 07, 2011
Svartling liked this post.
Mar 07, 2011
Svartling said...
Interesting post.
Mar 07, 2011
Sean Mulholland said...
Gen X talking about Gen Y - don't think they realize Gen-Y attention whores actually want everyone to see everything, for better or for worse.

Multiple identities for multiple social groups will be antiquated by necessity in a hyperconnected society.

Mar 07, 2011
Sean Mulholland said...
Gen X talking about Gen Y - don't think they realize Gen-Y attention whores actually want everyone to see everything, for better or for worse.

Multiple identities for multiple social groups will be antiquated by necessity in a hyperconnected society.

Mar 07, 2011
Dennis McDonald said...
These are very good points and emphasize how "one social network" is an impossibility.

I wrote some similar thoughts in "Why I'm Not as Interested in 'Personal Data Portability' As I Once Was" (http://www.ddmcd.com/why.html).

I think the "broadcast" metaphor is a good one. Facebook is the barrel and we are the fish, I'm afraid.

Mar 07, 2011
smokinjoe said...
Just because I am proud of who I am and what I stand for (while I attempt to maintain a consistent self rooted in reality), doesn't make me an attention whore.

I'd rather have discussions with those that may disagree with every one of my opinions, but stay consistent in their convictions than deal with one more internet trollolololololer.

Mar 07, 2011
Awesome write up! You just helped me justify why I hate to login to various sites using my Facebook login. I know they won't go away, but at some point they should get stale.
Mar 07, 2011
Dennis Heffernan said...
I can't agree. Letting people create separate identities everywhere they go on the net just eliminates responsibility and accountability. You're the same person everywhere you go in real life; that needs to be true on the net too.
Mar 07, 2011
Chris Sparno said...
Excellent piece. Some days, I feel positive about FB and it's place in my online life (when I can share and connect with my real life friends there). And other times, I just don't feel the love. Your post puts into perspective what I have been feeling but have been unable to express in words. Thanks for writing this.
Mar 07, 2011
stevekling said...
You're right, people have different personas for different topics/groups/etc. just as you act differently around old friends vs. work colleagues. Smart community managers can choose a platform that provides a FB social-sign-on *option* that can pre-populate with FB data but can be decoupled at any time and provide syndication back to fb on a checkbox-based, submission-by-submission basis...kinda like this form I'm using now.
Mar 07, 2011
Rick Gutleber said...
Look, I can understand that people have good reasons to not want everyone to know everything you do. For instance, if someone is looking for a job, he or she couldn't mention it on Facebook because it could get back to his or her employer. But there's a difference between private and public behavior, and social media is by definition public. And even when you are doing things that are supposed to be private, don't count on it. Stuff gets out, just like in meatspace.

But to me, this simply isn't a problem. How is it inauthentic to not want to be the same person to everyone? It seems to me that if you need to filter your friends and family, etc, from each other then you are already inauthentic. My family would appreciate my friends and vice versa, and whenever they meet that's always been the case. If I have to act differently in front of one group compared to another, THAT is inauthentic. I simply don't behave differently for different groups of people in any situation that could be called "public". If I'm thinking about doing something that my parents would not approve or that I'd be embarrassed if my kids or wife knew, then that's a good indication that maybe I shouldn't do it. It's called having standards, and I think it makes me more authentic because I don't play games with who I am.

Having said that I think the idea of multiple "personas" still has merit, not the least reason of which is that I'm sure many people don't feel the way I do. I expect that Facebook will eventually adopt the concept once they solve the logistics of it. I'm sure the ramifications of supporting multiple identities for people, especially since FB is based around you using your real identity, are huge.

Mar 07, 2011
Anand Sivakumar said...
FB's version of the social network, as you rightly layout, isn't ideal. But that doesn't mean that facebook hasn't begun a push towards a more "real-life social network". Especially in the wake of possible competitors from Google (previously announced "Google Me"), Facebook will in the near future provide a better way to delineate your contacts. A simple example would be to allow you to have primary friends (close contacts), secondary friends (your grandmother for example) and temporary contacts (the helpdesk from your local cable provider) and to allow context-based information broadcast.

Should you be interested, I've written an article about a possible evolution of such a social network here - http://anand-sivakumar.blogspot.com/

Mar 07, 2011
David Sanger said...
You can choose whether or not the comment goes to your News Feed. My choice is not.

But they don't have the option to comment as your Facebook page which IMO would be more helpful.

If you are using FB as your page there is no comment option at all on Techcrunch, just a spinning wheel

Mar 07, 2011
btaroli said...
I think this is quite true, and the authenticity being referenced is how people behave differently in varying sizes of social groups. I remember this issue being discussed in relation to reality TV shows; you basically understand that they are not behaving as they would normally because they /know/ they're being observed (and these days even /voted/ on). I hadn't previously thought of Facebook as a broadcast medium, but I appreciate the viewpoint. You can't establish groups of people to interact with easily. Perhaps that will change with the "Groups" feature, but honestly I don't see too many people using that yet.

The more I ponder the implications of Facebook, the closer I get to killing my profile there and switching entirely to Twitter. :-)

Mar 07, 2011
xenophon10k said...
colorwarfare said...
I completely agree! In fact, TechCrunch's recent deployment of the Facebook commenting has guaranteed that I will not be commenting there.

Particularly since the system REQUIRES me to have either a Facebook account, or a Yahoo! account. Don't have one? Get one. Don't want one? Then you aren't welcome here.

Of course, Posterous is only a little better - I can create a Posterous account. I fear that we are going to see a real balkanization along major ID services - Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft. I'd rather see digital certs and a global web of trust.

Mar 07, 2011
matt23 said...
The problem with Facebook, is they own all your data, your online identity, and can do with it whatever they feel like, or their advertisers, investors, whomever pays them the most moolah, everything else is who cares. It's amazing so many people are willing to go through all this hassle for a little ego massage.

Well, maybe not, just heard yesterday of another friend that is dumping the site, bon voyage.

Just get a private network such as Odysen and be done with it. No advertising, no hassles, just communicate or collaborate, and move on, life's too short.

Mar 07, 2011
Jeff Hester said...
Whatever you think of the Facebook commenting system, it's not "killing authenticity." The concept that posting anonymously is more "authentic" is a load of crap.

I'm not a fan of Facebook commenting. It's got too many shortcomings. Killing authenticity is not one of them.

Mar 07, 2011
xnowimcoolx said...
This is harsh, but it's true, there's a name for someone who sees their lives in terms of more than one "world" or "reality" and that's: hypocrite (which comes from the greek word 'actor'). This is the least authentic anyone can be.

Facebook isn't killing authenticity, people trying to be who they are not is.

Mar 07, 2011
Euro Popped said...
Interesting sentiment, "xnowimcoolx," why didn't you use your real name to say as much? Guess that makes YOU the hypocrite. And you are wrong, btw,. Many of us like anonymity because it allows the focus to be on the words or content of a comment or a blog instead of the person making them. There are multiple realities in all our lives. At least those of us who lead interesting lives, that is.
Mar 07, 2011
xnowimcoolx said...
Euro, anonymity and seeking a different identity depending on where you are or who you are talking to are two completely different things.

And actually, I am a great deal more than my name (given or made up) and in reality (the only one there is) this name is not very anonymous at all. You'd find me very quickly on facebook, twitter, google etc (meaning you didn't bother to check before making the accusation). In fact, you would find out more about me with that name than with my real name (not because I hide my real name but because I share it with someone famous).

Hypocrisy is more than just a nickname change. The post is about authenticity through multiple "lives" or versions of oneself and I (personally) think that's a contradiction of terms.

Next time don't take it so personally, I'm just interacting with the ideas the author laid out.

Mar 08, 2011
Serge K. Keller liked this post.
Mar 08, 2011
Dennis McDonald said...
I want to control the ads I get on facebook
Mar 08, 2011
Andrew Birley said...
Can you just untick the post on facebook box?
Mar 08, 2011
Jack C said...
Don't you find it a tad disturbing that the people at the wheel in the online identity debate don't seem to understand social psychology? The declaration that people have "one identity", by a social networking mogul, is patently foolish.
Mar 08, 2011
xnowimcoolx said...
Jack, can you point me to a social psychology article that argues for individuals having multiple identities depending on their social environment. I looked but all I can find is that individuals can create a range of "group identities" (i.e. an identity of a group which is the sum of the individuals - whose identity remains the same). thanks.
Mar 08, 2011
r f liked this post.
Mar 08, 2011
Harold Cabezas liked this post.
Mar 08, 2011
Jack C said...
Have you tried PubMed? ~91,000 articles return on a search for "identity." I'm sure there are several hundred on issues pertaining to gender/sexual identities (a viable split in the "one identity" notion, even today).

On its face, in-person (embodied) and online (disembodied) serve as the rather obvious dichotomy.

That said, I'm not a sociologist, so I can't point to extensive literature (assuming your request is genuine). However, my own interests have exposed me to the work of Takie Lebra. She has written extensively on issues related to identity/self, as they pertain to culture (e.g., The Japanese Self In Cultural Logic, etc.). I'm quite sure her references include numerous west-orientated publications on the underlying topic.

Mar 08, 2011
Fahad Imtiaz said...
EQ....
Mar 08, 2011
xnowimcoolx said...
Thanks for that, I'll give it a look. At first glance I didn't come across anything but I didn't go too deep. I'll keep looking.

Regarding embodied and disembodied identity I'd argue that the dichotomy is not actually real. Take for instance a part of someone's identity (lets say their political, social and religious views), these things don't change magically when someone goes online, they still remain very much intact.

One last note: I found it interesting (this is from PubMed) that when researchers looked at gay/lesbian online activity they didn't ask questions regarding the subjects "online identity" rather they asked how the subjects portrayed their embodied identity online.

Mar 08, 2011
judyshapiro said...
I read this post carefully and then read Scoble’s post carefully.Then, I read all the comments on both post carefully.

Then I re-read all of it – just to be sure.

IMHO – these two posts crossed talked because of a jumbling of terms and definitions. It prompted me to write a lengthy response post explaining why definitions matter in talking about this topic. My post there is named: Trust, authenticity and transparency in the online world. Why definitions matter. (www.trenchwars.wordpress.com)

Steve – I agree with you about how FB as an uber-platform causes people to censor themselves which is a ding to authenticity. But I disagree that “a single identify defies us.”
As to Scoble’s post responding to your post – his points about being open and identifiable is true but that speaks to transparency – not authenticity. One can be 100% authentic and yet not be transparent.

When you add all the comments with their versions of confusion, you have a jabberwacky of noise with little insight.

Having worked in security for many years – solutions can only be found when the problem is framed correctly. Still some work to do given the fall out.

Judy Shapiro

Mar 08, 2011
TechnicLee said...
Excellent post, Steve! I am in complete agreement. As with colorwarfare, the use of Facebook's commenting system on any web site guarantees that I won't be commenting there.
Mar 10, 2011
Peter Lavelle said...
I'm pretty happy to use my Facebook profile to comment elsewhere on the web. Saves logging into countless profiles for each site. In fact I know I've started commenting more on sites since integrated Facebook commenting emerged. So nah-nah-nah-nah-nah.
Mar 10, 2011
Matthew Cooper said...
Wow this so true. You have to bleach your FB these days lest someone find out the truth. Reddit is one of the last true bastions were you can be yourself. BTW I posted this to FB in some kind of meta circle jerk.
Mar 10, 2011
smokinjoe said...
> You have to bleach your FB these days lest someone find out the truth. Reddit is one of the last true bastions were you can be yourself.

So you basically are another one of those people that portray themselves with a false identity? Leaving comments you never have to worry about being accountable for?

Mar 10, 2011
Valerie Sprague said...
I couldn' t resist using Facebook to comment. I'm not sure if "authenticity" is the right word, but it's counter to the way the internet works, and the way LIFE works, which is a compartmentalized space - we wear different clothes to play tennis and go to work and go to parties, and we often do these things with different groups of people, who are not privy to every detail of every conversation we have when not in their presence.

Posting a comment on this post is also very different than posting a comment on a blog post about a medical condition, family situation, personal investment issue, stalking dilemma, parenting problem or any other discussion people might want to have without tying one's identity to them. It does stifle discussion. It's the digital equivalent of having personal telephone conversations transcribed and posted on the internet under your full name.

Most of us find oversharing frustrating when the people we overhear in coffee shops do it, so why would we want to do it online?

Privacy and personal safety are more important than convenience, IMO. And you'll find a lot of people agree with that under our real names. :)

Mar 10, 2011
smokinjoe said...
Privacy is important, and if you're going to discuss a medical condition, I'm sure you wouldn't go post it on a message board.

And really, what you put on may change your appearance (as will visiting various websites), but in the end, YOU are who YOU are. What you wear doesn't define you - what you do defines you. The Internet may be filled with folks who try to fake an act or personality, something you will find in Life, however that isn't how Life works.

At least it shouldn't, if it were to work that way, I shouldn't be held accountable by family anything I did at work and vice versa. People should be held responsible for all of their actions regardless of where they take place. Privacy is important, and no one is saying that it should go away, but there is quite a bit of distance between staying true to yourself and having absolutely no privacy.

Mar 10, 2011
David Sanger said...
Actually now I see when you make a comment on the TechCrunch site using Facebook you have the option to select as identity ANY of the pages you own.
Mar 10, 2011
Danny Bloom said...
i don't get it, Steve.... i am in Taiwan, i have not lost any of my authenticity, I use FB daily, what's the big deal. it's just another online tool to chat with people. If anything, it has enhanced my authenticity.l You people in the USA have grown paranoid. Chiill.
Mar 11, 2011
Selin Kocagoncu said...
I completely disagree. If anything, I think that having a unified cyber identity would approximate authenticity much more than a scatter of context-specific nicks. i believe that one would be much more inclined to adopt personae if their identity-presence was limited (consider the fun white lies/performances enjoyed on vacations). in the situation steve cheney is describing, people will (in due performative time) define their public selves.

(death of facebook is a different topic altogether-- i agree that it will happen in the future, how near i dont know, but not because peple are "way too social", but because we live in a consumerist culture and get bored of trends.)

Mar 16, 2011
thebottlerocket said...
Face it, authenticity goes way down when people know their 700 friends, grandma, and 5 ex-girlfriends are tuning in each time they post something on the web.
Mar 16, 2011
Anna Bluesfish said...
I split my personality with reason
Into innumerous profiles.
Then I can wear in due season
Some different masks in different styles.
Mar 19, 2011
salmonsm said...
First: the fact you can use your twitter or FB account here to comment is the height of irony.

Secondly, I would argue our FB personas are ALREADY fake. who hasn't shared clever exchanges with friends on the wall, then expressed more sincere sentiments in a private email? and who hasn't tried to come off a certain way in a private email, then get down to the real thing face to face? It's all a big forgery, a bluff, a game. Then again, that's what makes humans who they are.

Apr 06, 2011
mr4k said...
liked the post
Apr 06, 2011
offbeatmammal said...
after some more though on this I think the problem is that Facebook need to adjust their thinking to enable the social graph to better support the complex interactions people have rather than simply try to flatten everything - more on that here http://post.offbeatmammal.com/facebook-is-wrong-the-social-graph-isnt-flat
May 08, 2011
Though I agree that Facebook commenting outside the platform need a better strategy, Facebook's dominance and spreading their octopus like many hands outside their platform with their social plugins is a trend that really have been impacting how we see the coming/next web. I think authenticity can be improved over time with a good strategy. Other that, The social web is the next web where we find Facebook as the epicenter of it, not only as a platform but as the web itself eventually.
Jun 05, 2011
Guy Barry said...
I liked the comment about 700 friends, grandma and 5 ex girlfriends (good stats)...it's true, I cannot comment or write on my wall as I might like to. But...I find Twitter, which is in some senses much more anonymous, much easier to express myself. Maybe Mark Zuckerberg is onto something interesting...?
Jul 01, 2011
ljwood said...
An interesting view. I liked the way Facebook was referred to as a "huge broadcast platform."
Sep 14, 2011
Barry Maurice said...
Though I agree that Facebook commenting outside the platform need a better strategy, Facebook's dominance and spreading their octopus like many hands outside their platform with their social plugins is a trend that really have been impacting how we see the coming/next web. I think authenticity can be improved over time with a good strategy. Other that, The social web is the next web where we find Facebook as the epicenter of it, not only as a platform but as the web itself eventually.
Feb 23, 2012
Victor Barnes said...
Well, there are two perspectives, either the glass is half full or half empty. i feel that Facebook is really not killing my authenticity, infact it is help me in enhancing it as I can really avoid if I want to avoid someone. I can post or say whatever I want to say, without thinking whether the other person will like it or not!

Leave a comment...

steve cheney

steve cheney

Engineer with an MBA.

Current entrepreneur.

Former programmer, marketer, investment banker, and vc.

My Other Sites
 
Subscriptions

Contact me
Follow me on Twitter