Hacker News Reader

An alternative could be to stick to a given nickname in related communities. HN, r/programming, and one's tech blog could form such a cluster. Sure, it's not your "real" name, but it will get a reputation regardless. Pseudonym or real name, people will shun you if you displease them too much. Simply remembering that may be just as effective as keeping one nice.

To make that even more effective, one could even make a point of using that same identity even when physical presence is required. Many video game players actually do this, and it seems to be mostly working.

I have been doing this for many years now. I am "spiffytech" everywhere on the Internet, and that identity has extended to my physical relationships. In my college LUG, everyone knew me pretty much exclusively by my handle. This topic once came up there. I asked a friend who I'd known for four years if he actually knew my real name, and he had to stop and think for several minutes before he could respond with my name. Another friend I'd known for about as long said the only reason he knew my name at all was because it's in the "From" line in my emails.

Despite the fact that I never operate online under my given name, the fact that my username is tightly tied to my identity and reputation prevents me from employing it as a shield of anonymity to hide behind while I lob uncivil or disrespectful remarks at other Netizens. I don't generally feel tempted to do anyway, but I can't say how much of that is due to my consistent use of my username.

Hello Brian :)

That's pretty cool. I wish someone would call me by my online handle.

I've seen this bleeding over happen fairly regularly, actually, not just in the LUG. It seems to be fairly common in groups where people interact heavily online and less heavily in person.

(Also, hi spiffy!)

This is what I do. I'm 'blowski' on here, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, email, etc. It's a handle which stuck years ago. So although it's not my real name, it's pretty easy to identify me by it. My profile page also lists my real name and job.

I generally stick with certain handles, having 3-4 at all times, some going back over 10 years. My HN one is unique to HN, though. I just wanted to check out the site so I picked any ol' handle, then once comments were upvoted it gained value to me.

Anyways, one of my long-term handles I wanted to erase from the internet and I succeeded with three exceptions, one due to my own laziness (edit: which I'm dealing with this morning), another because no one answered company email (but I eventually got through when the site was revamped), and the other because the company went out of business but the site remains online. It'd be nice to get my profile there expunged because it's slightly embarrassing but there's no valid way to contact them (not even via WHOis).

I especially like what you said about making your facebook 100% public to rid yourself of the illusion of privacy.

I agree. If I am going to put something online, I expect it to be in the public domain.

I do however try to keep all my online identities, although all real, separate. For example, I don't link my reddit account on my facebook. It's like having different groups of friends, you don't want to force them to hang out together, it would be awkward.

Or delete your Facebook, and make an account just for following pages. I did it a year ago and I never looked back.

Yes I did this too. Facebook logon is much more convenient when your real identity is not linked to it.

I'd delete Facebook if it weren't so damn useful...

Honest question: What about facebook do you find useful?

I hate that I have to preface a question as being sincere to ensure that it isn't read as an insult, but here we are.

The most useful thing I find is just to contact friends. If I need to chat to someone then I know that if I send them a facebook message they'll most likely read it and reply within the day.

This - it's a dynamic contacts book for the extended group of people I know, don't speak to on a regular basis but might want to at some point.

Yep. Also what's strange is that although I do have phone numbers for many of my 'extended friends' through facebook (synced to android, facebook downloads everyone's numbers to your contact list). I would be much more comfortable contacting someone on facebook out of blue than texting out of the blue. Maybe it has something to do with that they can immediately see who I am on facebook whereas with texting they can't?

I had too many friends who "weren't reachable" other than Facebook. I'm not sure how they were getting the Facebook notifications - apparently over email, or on their phone, which also has SMS, but I could never get in touch with them unless I sent them a Facebook message.

I don't have those friends anymore. I deserve better. If someone can't take the time to reply to a simple email or text unless it's through Facebook, they're not worth having as friends. Yes, you may lose some friends, but the ones you keep you know are going to be there for you.

Why does having a communication preference make a person a good or bad friend? That seems incredibly small of you.

So you're choosing friends based on the messaging service they use?

I would not want to be your friend.

Choosing friends on their refusal to communicate with me via anything other than Facebook is somehow wrong of me? I don't care what you use to communicate with, but if I don't have access to that, I do expect someone to "go out of their way" to send an email/text. I was saying that I had friends who I couldn't ever contact once I left Facebook, despite them apparently having a phone and email address.

You shouldn't have left Facebook.

As someone not living in my country, it makes keeping track of my friends and family much easier.

Friend communication and scheduling.

Facebook has an unreal level of penetration into my friends, literally no other app is so widely used. It's not the best at any of the things I use it for, but it is the single most reliable way to schedule events and communicate with people I know for the least amount of effort.

My kids are on it. They use Facebook Messenger more than SMS.

Of course, they also use SMS, WhatsApp, Snapchat, and Kik as well, so I have to have all of those on my phone.

Deleting Facebook would be like deleting my life. Outrageous suggestion.

You need a better life.

No thanks, I'll keep mine. It's far too useful.

Delete Facebook, lawyer up, hit the gym ...

Your argument falls over the moment someone using their real name is inflammatory.

We shouldn't need to show our drivers license to qualify or validate our sincerity in any interactions, online or in person.

"He used his real name so it must be true" is not something we will ever hear.

Your name is "simonsarris", okay, so I barely noticed. It's a handle, and it might be real or made up. As a reader of your comment it makes absolutely no difference whether your real credentials are stated anywhere or not. If you present a good argument, that's all that matters. If you talk out of your rear end, that also matters. Your real name does not matter unless I am particularly interested in your real life. Which I am not, nor have reason to be.

I don't think he meant that if anyone used their real name online it would automatically make them sincere, I think he meant that since he was using his real name it kept him in check because he cared about his reputation or whatever.

Less about how other people view him and more about making sure that he didn't do anything that would tarnish himself. As opposed to the freedom you would feel behind anonymity to do things you wouldn't normally.

"Be true! Be true! Be true! Show freely to the world, if not your worst, yet some trait whereby the worst may be inferred!" -Hawthorne

I do a similar thing. As Epictetus said:

"When you do anything from a clear judgment that it ought to be done, never shun the being seen to do it, even though the world should make a wrong supposition about it; for, if you don't act right, shun the action itself; but, if you do, why are you afraid of those who censure you wrongly?"

I don't like that. It sounds too much like the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument for privacy invasion.

Sorry, but no. It's absolutely not the same thing at all. There is absolutely no conflict between being entirely public and open with the majority of your online activities, yet standing up for the rights of those who do need privacy, such as children or political activists or possibly women in some situations. We all need and expect privacy in some activities such as banking or voting records, but that's entirely compatible with generally living life in the open. My name is Simon Hibbs and outside perhaps one or two minor and very short lived cases, I have never used any other identity online.

It sounds as though the difference is voluntary vs. forced removal of privacy. The ideal of being willing and able to show oneself to the whole world, as opposed to being ashamed of each action.

That said, I disagree with the statement. Different social groups have different norms, and those norms should be respected. I tend to make a large number of sexual jokes when around a particular group of friends, but those jokes would not be taken well by other groups of friends. It is not that the jokes are wrong, but simply that they do not work for everyone. To broadcast them to all my various social groups would be mean-spirited, and so I do not.

"if you do, why are you afraid of those who censure you wrongly?"

For the obvious reasons - that they are in positions of power over you.

In the context of Epictetus' writing, "they" in fact do not hold power over you. That is in large part the entire point of Stoicism.

I do the the opposite with user names. I randomize all the accounts on every site I go so there would be no link between those (except the fact that all of them look random), But I don't hide anything and always assume that even the passwords to these accounts are public. As a matter of fact I literally have them all in a file as plain text username/password. So, it keeps me from doing anything I would not like anyone to see me doing, but when somebody enters my name in a search bar they don't automatically get to see everything I like to do on my free time.

It turns out that a real name policy does not improve online behavior: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/29/surprisingly-good-evidence-...

Personally, if I'm going to go to the trouble of eviscerating someone in text, I want to put my real name on it and take credit. Then again, I grew up with Usenet when flaming was an art form. (You kids get offa my 'net!)

coincidentally Saint[z-zone] was one of the more memorable Zerg players in professional Starcraft:Broodwar. It's a nice ID :)

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Saint

This indeed - I'm not always the best or least inflammatory, but I own what I say and want to have that reflect on me.

I agree the old saying "dont throw stones and hide your hand" applies here I think thats why blogs and comments on the internet are so nasty at times you can make some crazy screen name and lose all responsibilty for yor words and it brings out the worst in people

Nonsense. Anonymity doesn't bring out the worst in people. The attitudes and opinions and intelligence of the person behind the comment is what brings out the worst in their expression, or style of expression online.

Don't blame the presence or absence of a number on the letterbox of the house for the behavior of the occupants inside the house.

Strongly disagree. Anonymity comes with the promise of zero responsibility. You don't need to be a natural dickhead to find that tempting. Anonymity means you don't have to think too much because even if you're wrong nobody will know it's you

It's cool you disagree. When it comes to publishing our credentials, I hope it's okay to have variety in the community.

Your handle is another name for you in this moment. Relative to this discussion, to this forum, one's username is the cornerstone of each post. Perhaps forgotten easily between threads. But in $this thread is often where it counts.

In the beer garden, should all chatter be recorded and archived? Sure, why not. But then authored, as does a professional writer and editor? The skills needed not to say things that could result in noisy, inaccurate, too long, not long enough, or any number of other things that would make an unsubscribable Flipboard. Skills of few.

The username I gave myself, is more truthful of my state of mind, and point of view relative to this forum. The name means more here than the first name given to me by my parents, and my last name on loan from past generations. I'm proud of my real name, but I'm going for relevance and fun online.

My username on HN is not tied to my personal identity. The difference is I can jettison this persona, and all comments associated with it, at a moment's notice. It is difficult to do the same with my real identity.

That's what I mean when I say anonymity comes with the promise of zero responsibility.

Same philosophy here. I do use privacy settings in FB and G+ just to avoid spamming folk - I'll post things to public which I think anyone who follows/finds me may like, then use privacy for "audience targeting" as sharepoint folk would call it.

Totally agree with you.

Though I keep my Facebook visible to friends only because I don't want anything Facebook related ranking high on a personal name google search. I use twitter or blogs as the public facing searchable content tied to my name.

I have the same opinion and generally set things to public for this reason.

The only reason I second guess this decision is the idea of governments scraping social network data, when things are marked public you have little protection from that.

"the illusion of privacy"

damn, that's good.

That's good as well. The important thing is that this was done by choice, and not pushed upon you (like some companies want to do).

So basically you are putting up an act when you post under your real name?

In that sense, everybody is always putting up an act. Putting it a different way, nobody is ever really doing anything without taking context into account. So using a identifiable name could be described as controlling part of the context.

This is Golden... I'll start living by this approach