Are you who you say you are?

I guess the most concerning thing about this graphic  is the last part. 70% of the users on Facebook have privacy concerns. While it is also a network that believes in open information. Obviously this is a contradiction. I think it really shows the power of Facebook because despite their own concerns people don’t leave.

 Incredibly well designed, fellas. 

 Also, the retweet button isn’t working.

Thank you for letting us know. Not sure what’s wrong, working on it now. 

 I like this! Let’s send it along through the web.

Also just realized something. Facebook numbers are up to 600 million now.  May need to slightly tweak that one line. 

 Amazing infographic, send me a tweet when you release the next one.

Thank you! Will do.

—-

Andrew Skotzko
@askotzko
http://namesake.com/andrewskotzko (start a conversation with me)
The Curious Entrepreneur Blog

[...] here’s a handy infographic, courtesy of the fine folks at real-time conversation company Namesake, that delineates the advantages, pitfalls and rallying cries behind the anonymity and transparency [...]

 Great graphic…. It’s interesting, sometimes I want to be anonymous.  Sometimes I don’t.  

Great share! Thank you!

 :):):)

One thing missing from the “Who Benefits” on the Anonymity side – TROLLS. It’s a lot easier to bash someone irresponsibly when you know that you won’t be found out. Having your name attached to something, and knowing that your comment could be found (and used against you) later, changes how people behave. 

I publish poetry anonymously online because I want feedback but don’t want to hold  back my feelings for fear of people I know reading my work and being upset. I don’t need every potential employer reading my poetry and knowing my innermost feelings. 

[...] Namesake heeft over dit onderwerp (anonimiteit versus openheid) een prachtige infographic gemaakt. Daarbij hebben ze Facebook oprichter Mark Zuckerberg tegenover 4chan oprichter Chris Pool gezet. Zuckerberg behartigt de belangen van de stroming die streeft naar openheid en Pool zit in het kamp van de strevers naar anonimiteit. [...]

[...] şirketi Namesake‘dekilerin anonimlik ve şeffaflık felsefelerinin ardındaki avantajları, güçlükler ve [...]

your poetry sucks 

[...] şirketi Namesake‘dekilerin anonimlik ve şeffaflık felsefelerinin ardındaki avantajları, güçlükler ve [...]

lol, facebook

 Shira is right. One reason Facebook is so popular is that you don’t get vicious ad hominem, name calling, insulting, slanderous attacks from people you don’t even know. This has been one of the downsides to the web, although one I would gladly put up with if there was no solution.

Facebook has at least taken a step in that direction. They didn’t have to establish some draconian clampdown to do it. They simply let your friends do it. Smart.

I don’t know if it indicates some “power”. Maybe it just ties into the people who are concerned and limit the private info they post. I would have answered it the same way. I don’t use facebook because of power, but because of value. 

[...] s.parentNode.insertBefore(rdb, s); })(); Transparenz vs. AnonymitätDiese Infografik bei namesake.com stellt die (relative) Transparenz der Nutzer von Facebook der (relativen) Anonymität der [...]

This is a great infographic! 

I understand the need for safety in certain situations, and I understand how anonymity provides that for a user and the community. But in my experience as a community manager, posting content non-anonymous tends to better help and protect the community and those who want to connect and grow. 

And the more I look at this infographic and compare Zuckerberg’s and Poole’s reasoning, it seems that that they are really saying the same thing but going about it in different ways. And from a group psychology perspective, when I look at it, the whole debate really says a lot about the community.  It says that the those within a anonymous community

Yes, generaly as humans, we tend to make snap judgements about people which creates fear of rejection and other unfortunate limitations for those who might present uncommon viewpoints or ideas. But on the flipside, many times that fear of rejection is ungrounded or just is not rational.  Could this be the case for those who prefer to post anonymously? Could they be making judgements about freedom of creativy that just aren’t true but are only based on their own limited perception?

All I know is that I prefer non-anonymous situations because they are most like
offline relationships, and what I post online is also what I would say to a person or For me, I prefer non-anonymous situations becaues they most resemble offline relationships. And what I post online is also what I would say to someone, or to a community face-to-face. And anonymous situations tend to allow TROLLS and other, unproductive, harmful and hurtful conversations to flourish, which usually isn’t good for any community, online or offline.

[...] Transparency Vs. Anonimity: Are You Who You Say You Are? (namesake.com) [...]

What a great graphic!  However, it seems to operate on the assumption that concepts of “public” and “private” are fixed domains when, I think, they are changing faster than we realize. Not that they were well-defined to begin with (except viewed through specific contextual lenses). If they were a) static and b) well-defined, I think this debate would be much simpler. Clay Shirky writes and talks about the way media has evolved from a system where public and private channels of communication are very distinct and well defined (i.e. watching TV vs. talking on the phone) to one that encompasses an expanded set of possibilities.

In some contexts the terrain can certainly be reduced to a public/private or transparent/anonymous dichotomy—but in others, especially when it involves communication/media, the old one-to-one correspondence just doesn’t fit.  At least so far as privacy/self-representation is concerned, we need a new conceptual framework that can accomodate these shifts without coming appart at the seams every time some aspect of the social or communicative landscape changes.

This is exactly the sort of case where the public/private dichotomy is insufficiently rigid.  There are so many levels of what we’re willing to share and with whom; saying “it’s either public or it isn’t” just doesn’t seem to make sense.

This is why #Quora is the best of both worlds. It forces you to register with your real name, but allows you to ask and answer questions anonymously. This encourages those who wish to be authentic without the risk of repercussions. The ranking of the  Q&A you post as anonymous affects your real name so there is accountability and legitimacy.

[...] ソース：Are you who you say you are? – Namesake Blog [...]

[...] Namesake.com has produced the great infographic below to drive home each sides argument further. [...]

[...] say you are?Are you who you say you are? June 3rd, 2011 Randall Hand Goto comments Leave a commentAre you who you say you are? – Namesake Blog.Click for Fullsize This story written by Randall Hand Randall Hand is a visualization scientist [...]

[...] the infographic The Rules of the Online Road – Transparency vs Anonimity @ [...]

[...] Transparency Vs. Anonimity: Are You Who You Say You Are? (namesake.com) [...]

Thanks Chris. I agree totally your your points especially on TROLLS.
I prefer non-anonymous situations because I like to be myself at all times. If I need to contribute to a conversation online and offline, I would like to say what I mean & mean what I say. It is about having the courage & pleasantness to be who you are.

Thanks again Chris.

Solution: 2 identities.

Hey there, just wanted to stop by and say thanks for producing this great graphic and getting my brain thinking! I enjoyed thinking about the value of anonymity a great deal… as opposed to the ‘transparency’ stance that so many companies appear to be taking. I created a blog post about this graphic to go along with my thoughts. Keep up the good work.