Real names vs pseudonyms online
When signing up to Veritula, we are all asked to use our true first and last names. I would like to discuss using true names online, not only on Veritula but on other social media too. This is not something I have thought about much. I currently use pseudonyms everywhere except Instagram/FB and Veritula.
Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas, and submit new ideas.@dennis-hackethal* Please share your reasoning for your request that Veritula users use their true names.
When people use their true names, I expect higher quality contributions, less rudeness, fewer trolls, that kind of thing. More accountability generally means higher quality.
When a trusted member vouches for someone new, they’ll probably meet those expectations.
Another reason I want people to use their true names is that I want Veritula to be a place for serious intellectuals, not yet another social network where people just screw around. Part of being a serious intellectual is public advocacy of one’s ideas and public updates on changed positions.
See #4071: if a trusted member vouches for them, I can infer they’re not here to screw around.
But that doesn’t address the part about public advocacy of one’s ideas and public updates on changed positions in the sense that you put your own name behind your ideas.
What if someone uses a well-established pseudonym/online identity? That can still carry a lot of weight.
There are ways. For example, they could use an established account to reach out.
Would it be any harder than verifying someone’s name? It’s not like I check people’s ID.
People could use Veritula to establish that intellectual presence and put their name (real or not) behind their ideas.
Some people work in professions where sharing certain opinions puts them at risk of being fired.
Also, there are people living under repressive regimes.
Some reputational concerns are legitimate, and Veritula should accommodate them to promote free speech.
People often say there are safety issues involved in using your true name online.
Using my true name here causes me to take more care in what I write. I’m not hiding behind an identity I can discard.
This may make it harder for me to discuss sensitive topics (e.g. navigating personal relationships, health issues, etc.) since it may reveal things to people who know me personally, things that I may wish to keep to myself, that I would only discuss online behind a pseudonym.
One feature I have planned is private discussions that only you and people you invite can see.
One reason I like the private chat is also because of that. I like the rigorous nature of Veritula and I want that kind of criticisms into my private life.
Some people – and I don’t know if this includes you or not – are overly worried about getting embarrassed or making silly mistakes.
There are some exceptions where reputation needs to be taken very seriously, but I think the general view to take in this matter is that no one cares. Think of the deepest embarrassment you’ve ever felt – and then try to replace that feeling with how others felt about your situation.
Like, if you’re on stage playing the guitar in front of hundreds of people, and you hit the wrong note, you may feel embarrassed. But many people didn’t even notice. And those who did probably didn’t care nearly as much about the mistake as you did.
I think it is more that it is a permanent record of things I have written that may one day be used as an attack vector. It means I need to really mean what I write, so that I can stand behind it (even as potentially an honest mistake) if someone tries to use it against me.
It’s an understandable concern. I subscribe more to the insight from BoI chapter 10. Open societies inadvertently give their enemies more access than closed ones, but they also gain so much more knowledge and strength because of their openness that they can deal with their enemies better than if they were closed.
(I went back and forth on whether to label this as a criticism. I decided to do so but I want to be clear that it doesn’t mean I’m trying to tell you how to live your life.)
Is there a reason the analogy follows from open vs closed societies, to open vs closed people? A society is not a person.
I think the same logic applies because it’s not just memes that can have static and dynamic replication strategies – ideas in one mind can have those replication strategies, too.
I call a mind dominated by either replication strategy a dynamic or static mind, respectively.
Also, if an individual keeps progressing, hopefully he can get into a point in life where people's opinion only 'hurt' his feelings and not his livelihood.
I hadn't thought of this angle. Very interesting.
I should aim to create a life where it isn't a problem if people who have physical access to me also know what I say online.
I'm not sure what that looks like in practice. I suppose it is highly situational.