7 Comments

Summary:

Facebook’s co-founder and CEO became a lightning rod for anonymity advocates because he said having multiple personas indicated a “lack of integrity.” But he seems to have moderated his views since then and is now willing to tolerate some elements of anonymity

For some time now, Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg has been the poster boy for “real identity” on the internet, and therefore also one of the bad guys for those who believe that anonymity and pseudonymity are important principles worth upholding. But lately, there have been increasing signs that Zuckerberg’s views on the topic are evolving — including his alleged interest in Secret — and that he has come to see the value and utility of allowing some form of anonymity, even within the Facebook universe. And that’s a good thing.

The Facebook CEO became a lightning rod for anonymity proponents based on comments he made during an interview with David Kirkpatrick, author of The Facebook Effect, in 2010. At the time, Zuckerberg said he believed that “the days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly” because having two identities “is an example of a lack of integrity.”

These comments were later amplified by Zuckerberg’s sister Randi, then the marketing director for the social network, who said at a conference that “online anonymity has to go away” because it encourages bullying behavior. “I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors,” she said — criticisms that are similar to those often made about Secret and Whisper and other popular anonymous apps.

Facebook has tried to stamp out anonymity

Identity

The impression left by Mark Zuckerberg’s comment to Kirkpatrick was that the network was going to do its best to stamp out anonymity wherever it appeared, and that’s more or less exactly what it proceeded to do for the next couple of years. Along with Google — which at the time was requiring the use of a “real identity” on its fledgling Google+ network — Facebook forced users to register with what it believed to be a real name (although it didn’t ask for proof), and removed accounts that were registered with what it determined to be fake-sounding names or pseudonyms.

As a number of anonymity activists pointed out, along with sociologists and online behavior experts like Microsoft researcher danah boyd (who spells her name with all lower-case letters), Zuckerberg’s views about the duplicity of maintaining multiple identities make perfect sense when you happen to be a rich white male CEO, but can be dangerous for those who don’t fit that profile — especially those who are living a double life by necessity, for personal or professional reasons.

To take just one example, Jillian York of the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted that Facebook’s practice actually made it much easier for authoritarian regimes in countries like Egypt and Tunisia to track down dissidents and subject them to all kinds of harassment. Gay users who had not come out to their families or employers also wrote about their dislike of the “real identity” rules, as did some whose political or religious beliefs might subject them to harassment.

Many veterans of online communities argued that anonymity and pseudonymity aren’t bugs in the system, but crucial aspects of the way we behave online — and not just marginalized groups, but all kinds of people who prefer to express certain thoughts or engage in certain activities that they don’t want attached to their professional or public lives. That can have negative aspects to it, obviously, but it also serves a fundamental human need.

Signs of a new perspective emerging

Mark Zuckerberg

In an interview earlier this year with Bloomberg Businessweek, on the 10th anniversary of Facebook’s birth, Zuckerberg gave some of the first public clues that his beliefs about the value of anonymity might be evolving. His comments came in the context of a discussion about popular anonymous apps like Secret and Whisper, and also about Facebook’s decision to leave acquisitions like WhatsApp and Instagram as standalone products — ones that don’t require real names or identities. New apps might follow this model rather than the Facebook-dictated real identity model, he suggested.

“I don’t know if the balance has swung too far, but I definitely think we’re at the point where we don’t need to keep on only doing real identity things. If you’re always under the pressure of real identity, I think that is somewhat of a burden. [Our view on anonymity] is definitely, I think, a little bit more balanced now 10 years later.”

It seems unlikely that Zuckerberg will ever walk back its views on “real identity” when it comes to the big blue network that is the official Facebook universe — but it appears as though he is willing to experiment with other ways of behaving inside virtual communities on Instagram or other apps, and that is a positive step. Maybe some day the Facebook CEO will admit that anonymity isn’t a “lack of integrity” that needs to be corrected, but instead something fundamental about human beings that the company needs to adapt to and support.

Embedded below is a TED video of a talk that 4chan founder Christopher “Moot” Poole gave about the virtues of anonymity:

Post and photo thumbnails courtesy of Thinkstock / lofilolo and Scott Beale, as well as Thinkstock / daoleduc

  1. JSintheStates Saturday, April 5, 2014

    PT Barnum would be proud! Zuckerberg is a huckster without an actual product; the virtual product he hocks is stolen goods! PR is everything, and Zuckerberg has got you just wher he wants you!

    Share
  2. Obviously, neither Zuckerberg nor his privileged sister have ever been in an abusive relationship requiring that they hide from the person who has threatened to kill them. There are many, many reasons why one would want to hide one’s real identity.

    Share
  3. Stephen Wilson Sunday, April 6, 2014

    Actions speak louder than words.
    If Zuckerberg is genuine about a more nuanced view of anonymity, he should rethink facial recognition. Facebook’s habit of running its facial recognition over all albums, making matches without consent, is the greatest threat to anonymity I know it.
    Facial recognition is very serious business for Facebook. They vigorously contested the EU privacy commissioners’ actions against photo tagging; they have done major AI research of their own into “DeepFace”; and they are willing to spend fantastic sums on photo sharing sites like Instagram and Snapchat purely (have to think) in order to access fresh streams of imagery.
    What gives Facebook the right to mash anonymous photos uploaded for fun, with others’ photo tags, to identify people without consent? Or to create new sup-ertemplates using DeepFace and massively redundant photo libraries? How does industrialised de-anonymization this accord with Zuckerberg’s alleged new humility?

    Share
  4. The best move toward anonymity would be if Zuckerberg just disappeared.

    Share
  5. Tony Jack Tony Tuesday, April 8, 2014

    To be fair, i think actual world really need to be more open and connected.since it widen our universe and friendship around the world. unfortunately since the web r not secure yet whether because of stalker/hacker/spammer,and ciminal intention by some people,most people still dont want to embrace that vision.

    trust me,if some social network / search engine / online store can truly guarantee the information/safety of real identity, i think people will share more and give their real identity.

    i give u one example.
    i still cant find my old friend when i search them through google/fb.
    bcause is whether their real name hide/change.

    Share
  6. I don’t really agree with the main point of the article. This is a guy who less than a year ago bought 4 surrounding homes so he could be further isolated from the world and have just a bit more privacy. Don’t judge people by their words – judge them by their actions. His views aren’t evolving, he’s just gotten a bit better at the requisite spin. I think there’s a lot of legitimate criticism about Facebook privacy. Not necessarily through ads because whether or not you use Facebook ads or the types of companies listed at http://www.facebooklikesreviews.com there’s no way that any advertiser is getting any personally identifying information through Facebook. But more along the lines of what happens to the data given out through apps, Facebook’s confusing privacy controls, and any relationship they have with government entities. Those are the bigger privacy issues that IMO many people won’t touch.

    Share
  7. The whole ‘lack of integrity’ thing is just another American excuse to stick their noses where they don’t belong. They’ve grown fat on the self-deluded belief that they own the world and control everything. Bad news for them: no, they don’t, and they never will (thank goodness!).

    Interesting to see this Zuckerberg dude doing a back peddle, but as the lady sang, “that don’t impress me much”. I wonder what he’s hiding that’s given him such a sudden change of heart? Or has he already gotten what he wanted from his privacy invasion dictatorship?

    Seriously, the the best thing the world could do is turn their backs on FB, Google, YouTube and the rest of the mongrel ‘services’ that are in bed together and nothing more than an American excuse to steal privacy and information.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post