5 Comments on “Google+ comment on Danah Boyd+ post re: nymwars”

  1. uniqhero Says:

    Kent Goertzen – +Samuel Spade “the mischief with the real name policy for me is that it forces my meatspace personality to be informed by my digital personality. i don’t want this. this is not because I am an “abusive person”. this is simply a privacy decision.”

    I really wonder about statements like that. Why? What don’t you want your ‘meatspace’ to know? I don’t see why there would be a reason for anyone to want that. And the very statement means you do have something to hide from your ‘meatspace’ life.

    “for instance, what if i’m interviewed by a grammar nazi who will not hire people that do not capitalize?”

    Really? You think they are going to check Facebook or Google just to look at your grammar outside of work related material?

    “my digital personality is only for likeminded individuals.” Again that means you have something to hide. If not you wouldn’t be worried about who sees it. If that’s the case, a social website might not be the most appropriate place to be interacting in that way. There are other places to do so, you can take your ‘digital’ personality to those places.

    “i say that it’s quite precocious to hold out that you can assess the point of social media. ”

    Hypocritical when you just do the same by trying to invalidate their view point.

    “Ideas expressed by nyms can never be truly without oppression if they can be gathered and associated with a meatspace identity.”

    I disagree.

    “do you truly believe that the phenomenon that was “mcarthyism” is just a historical relic? there is always that terrorizing other! ”

    And there are those that aren’t afraid of that ‘threat’ and would voice their views regardless.

    “because this particular organization of information would never have occured if i had to post it under my real name.”

    That is just it, the same occurs with many of those would attack other users. Many wouldn’t happen if the person had to do so on their real name.

    And I’ve seen people chased off of sites because of so called complete freedom to remain anonymous. So being forced to post under a real name isn’t the only way speech can be suppressed.

    For me I’m open to either choice, but like to see both sides of the debate presented.

  2. uniqhero Says:

    Samuel Spade – +Kent Goertzen “i don’t see why there would be a reason why anyone would want that” – in that sentence you effectively deny my side of the debate.

    at the very basic level i don’t think that you need a reason from me. like i said, it is a simple privacy decision. i also tied this into the precautionary principle.

    you seem to have fallen into a dangerous fallacy that people who enjoy exercising privacy rights have something to hide. this is just simply not the case and i urge you to reconsider that statement [“and the very statement means you do have something to hide from your “meatspace” life”]

    also, i just wanted to mention that my grammar example was in jest. i would point you to this phenomenon: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/technology/social-media-history-becomes-a-new-job-hurdle.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&hpw

    my point with the grammar example is that you really don’t know how you will be judged or who will be judging you.

    i believe that it is prudent to maintain control of your personal information. others would disagree.

    i also believe i should be afforded the right to maintain control of my personal information. others would say you can, but not here. fine. i obviously won’t use G+ once my nym gets banned. i believe that is, in effect, censorship and constrains my freedom of expression. a polarizing statement, i know. i’m not going to say a private company needs to guarantee a freedom of expression but it is a little disapointing especially from the beast that is: the google.

    i wonder if my comment gets deleted when i get banned…if you like to see both sides of a debate presented i would have thought you’d be interested in protecting all forms of speech – whether they take the form of an anonymous letter or a signed number.

    in dissent, sincerely,

    S. Spade

  3. uniqhero Says:

    Kent Goertzen – ” in that sentence you effectively deny my side of the debate. ”

    No I asked a question. Don’t assume motivation you have no way to determine.

    “you seem to have fallen into a dangerous fallacy that people who enjoy exercising privacy rights have something to hide.”

    No strawman argument. I don’t feel that at all. I know some do. I want to know other motivations.

    And I see you ignore the rest of the points that the very anonymity drives some people away, killing free speech itself, especially when abused. Abuse I’ve seen even here by those using fake names.

  4. Googel + is really increasing their popularity ..thanks for your nice post..know more about googel plus here

  5. uniqhero Says:

    thanks spamz, i don’t really know how much sense i made up there, but i always knew i had your support.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: