Using a handle vs. using one's true identity online

[aracaris]

I want to start a discussion on the pros and cons of letting people online just really know who you are vs. hiding behind a handle (partially because increasingly I've just been using my true identity online).

Some of the pros of using an alias could arguably also be cons. With anonymity you can get away with saying things that might not otherwise be so easy to get away with. For one you don't have to worry nearly as much about employers whom are trying to find out things about you by researching your online activities finding something that may be rather damning in their eyes that you said in some forum or other.

On the downside it can be harder to build a true online presence if you are just using a handle (though by no means impossible). It can certainly be harder to really build up a network if you are using a handle, or splitting up your identity between different handles on different forums, and then using your real name other places.

A lot of the time I just let people know whom I am, and it's pretty easy to find things out about me online, though nothing particularly personal.

Here though people tend to get into discussions of a little more personal nature and discuss things that people would consider controversial, which makes it perhaps more risky to disclose ones true identity. All though I think if someone really wanted to go out of their way to find out who I am it probably wouldn't be too hard!

Back to employers and the whole saying something damning online issue. Is it really right for a person to feel the need to hide behind a false identity in order to take part in the discussion of controversial issues? Should I keep my identity hidden, or even stay silent due to my fear of whether someone in a position of power being ticked off by something I say?

There is something about this that seems a bit morally off to me the more I think about it.

This isn't just an issue of internet speech when it comes down to it, as speech at public events, or in publications can have similar consequences.

Any opinions on this?

 

[NeverAmI]

I personally don't have a problem giving out my personal info in most cases because I am fairly restrictive in what I say. I don't feel the need to be anonymous, it feels like I am being deceptive or something.

Then again, there are some real weirdos out there. I would be MUCH less inclined to share personal info if I had actually had a serious issue with an inet stalker or something like that. If I were female I would probably be more hesitant to give out personal info just due to the attraction level of hormonal males.

I don't worry too much about ill-intentioned personal visits, they can say hello to my AK-47.

 

[WorkInProgress]

I've never been especially worried about having an internet presence, so I just think up a new name every time. I don't make up fake aspects of my personality unless I want to argue a point that I agree with lol

I don't think it's necessary for someone to hide behind a false identity, but do you think our bosses are really logging on to intpforum and looking up all of our posts? Doing that is quite different than when an employee calls their boss a dickweed on facebook, forgetting that they have him on their friend list

 

[Jesin]

Hmm, some would take issue with the assumption that their off-the-internet identity is necessarily closer to their "true identity" than their online one.

What counts as a "handle", anyway?

 

[Hawkeye]

My avatar is of a random dude I found on the internet.

 

[Madoness]

I've never been especially worried about having an internet presence, so I just think up a new name every time. I don't make up fake aspects of my personality unless I want to argue a point that I agree with lol

I don't think it's necessary for someone to hide behind a false identity, but do you think our bosses are really logging on to intpforum and looking up all of our posts? Doing that is quite different than when an employee calls their boss a dickweed on facebook, forgetting that they have him on their friend list

Well... I personally know one person who got fired because of posting some things on facebook. Though I do not like he got fired.... employer cannot dictate things and thoughts people are having or expressing on their free time, when while working they are doing okay, some sorts of freedom through anonymity is needed for these things not to happen.

Though ideally, no needed alias online would be needed. At least I would like a person being the same the whole time, no matter the alias. Not splitting the personality while online compared to being offline, as if being scared of having opinions and unique personality.

Edit:

The golden rule: Do not post your personal details unless you're willing to deal with possible future consequences.

 

[aracaris]

I've never been especially worried about having an internet presence, so I just think up a new name every time. I don't make up fake aspects of my personality unless I want to argue a point that I agree with lol

I don't think it's necessary for someone to hide behind a false identity, but do you think our bosses are really logging on to intpforum and looking up all of our posts? Doing that is quite different than when an employee calls their boss a dickweed on facebook, forgetting that they have him on their friend list

The Facebook issue you mentioned is more common, but you'd be surprised the kinds of things that places of employment will do now a days to dig up the dirt on employees. But it's not even just an internet issue now, I've heard the horror stories of companies punishing their employees for all kinds of outside of work activity. Of course at a certain point companies are just asking for a law suit. If I manage to dig up any specific stories I'll post them here.


EDIT:
Here's a blog article on this subject that I found. All though I do think that employer's have more power than employee's at this point simply due to the nature of the market at this time. In a better market employers would probably find themselves having to be more cautious.

http://www.onedayonejob.com/blog/turning-tables-digging-dirt-on-employers/

 

[NeverAmI]

In IT we can watch anything we want to as far as data traffic goes. In most cases no one cares unless they have reason to suspect you of some sort of foul play.

It is always wise to assume you have no privacy on your company's internal network. Outside of work is a different story though. I would be fairly disturbed if my boss was tracking my actions outside of work.

But you hit on something really aggravating to me, the idea that the company 'owns' you outside of the job. It seems like in a decent career level job, you can never get untethered from a company, it expects you to be on call 24/7, loyal every minute of every day. Yet, they turn around and close your plant or fire you for something trivial, such as retirement. This need for exponential growth and cost savings is like a cancer that can't continue on forever. There is no mutual respect.

 

[Madoness]

The Facebook issue you mentioned is more common, but you'd be surprised the kinds of things that places of employment will do now a days to dig up the dirt on employees.

I've always wondered if I'd ever work for the net provider, how much dirt I could gain only in one day... There are some statistics... and if people know how to get information... almost all of us would be f****d.

 

[aracaris]

RE: NeverAmI: yes, it's as if for some companies the employee is always "on the clock" in some sense. Now to a certain degree I can understand firing an employee for outside of work conduct, and by this I mean things like publicly denouncing your employer, saying private things about employees in a public forum, spilling (or even worse selling) company secrets, obviously those things warrant disciplinary measures, and in some cases could even end up putting the employee in trouble with the law. But beyond that our time away from work is our own.

One example I do remember seeing at one point was a news story where some company fired an employee for smoking outside of work.

Fortunately I haven't heard any horror stories from anywhere I've personally worked so far.

 

[WorkInProgress]

But you hit on something really aggravating to me, the idea that the company 'owns' you outside of the job. It seems like in a decent career level job, you can never get untethered from a company, it expects you to be on call 24/7, loyal every minute of every day. Yet, they turn around and close your plant or fire you for something trivial, such as retirement. This need for exponential growth and cost savings is like a cancer that can't continue on forever. There is no mutual respect.

^ Exactly. We lost our loyalty the moment they started pulling that shit. Then they complain when their absentees are through the roof and all the employees are out for themselves!

So long as you aren't in your work clothes, you shouldn't be disciplined for what you do outside of your shift. This excludes things like getting another job, forming a drug habit, or anything else that actually affects the quality of your work.

Now to a certain degree I can understand firing an employee for outside of work conduct, and by this I mean things like publicly denouncing your employer, saying private things about employees in a public forum, spilling (or even worse selling) company secrets, obviously those things warrant disciplinary measures, and in some cases could even end up putting the employee in trouble with the law. But beyond that our time away from work is our own.

One example I do remember seeing at one point was a news story where some company fired an employee for smoking outside of work.

Agreed.

 

[EditorOne]

"But you hit on something really aggravating to me, the idea that the company 'owns' you outside of the job. It seems like in a decent career level job, you can never get untethered from a company, it expects you to be on call 24/7, loyal every minute of every day. Yet, they turn around and close your plant or fire you for something trivial, such as retirement. This need for exponential growth and cost savings is like a cancer that can't continue on forever. There is no mutual respect."


Yup. People decry the labor unions, but there's a reason they came into being: To counteract the brutality and savagery of your average capitalist.

Anyone who thinks an employer actually cares about them is sadly mistaken. The only motivation for doing a good job should be the satisfaction you take in doing a good job, period. When the time comes for a superior to collect a bonus by reducing the payroll, your years of devotion and loyalty will weigh a feather in her calculations. In places where you can terminate for any reason except an illegal reason, look out. Some of you may recall the company here in the United States that fired all its employees making above a certain amount; they did that because they could. (Nobody much wants to work for them now, but they're still making aprofit so what do they care?)

These are the kinds of folks who think "Floggings will continue until morale improves" is actually a good idea rather than a joke.....

 

[EditorOne]

Oh, and back to the original thought: Sometimes there are very good reasons to remain anonymous. Don't think of it as anonymous; think of it as "preserving your privacy" or "making it harder for stalkers." The world is filled with weirdoes, some of them dangerous.

 

[Kuu]

Hmm, some would take issue with the assumption that their off-the-internet identity is necessarily closer to their "true identity" than their online one.

Yes. This identity is closer to who I truly am... the other one was even named by others. How can that be my true self? But that is also my true self. I have facets which are expressed on some but not on others. Why should I only have one name, one appearance? How restrictive. Ultimately how others perceive our identity is fragmented no matter the number of our 'identities'; bits and pieces here and there.... though to us there is no such fragmentation.


I never really think much about the anonymity aspects or employer stalking habits. If I were working for someone and they fire me for some idiotic reason, well the probability is high that I would've hated the job anyway. Fortunately the line of business I'm headed toward isn't dominated by corporate slavery...

 

[Claverhouse]

Yup. People decry the labor unions, but there's a reason they came into being: To counteract the brutality and savagery of your average capitalist.

As a side-issue, one of the indications of the intellectual nullity of libertarians is their insistence that Unions ( = workers ) are wicked contrasted with Capital ( =rich ). One may take this as merely being part of their fawning to wealth; but in effect it contradicts one of their own bases, that everyone is bound to seek their own advantage. If maximising one's position vis-a-vis the employer's overwhelming advantage means banding together to obtain increased reward for all, then that is the logical step.

When this is brought up they insist that unions are wrong because they are coercive --- and in the weird libertarian moral outlook coercion is a sin; as if the whole of natural existence is not a study in continually applied coercion --- whereas the massive powers of the employer are not coercive since the individual has a choice whether to accept the employment and the terms imposed. Which would be news to many in factories in the third world, and to those in an unrestricted capitalist utopia who had formed an addiction to eating.

To illustrate your point, I somewhere here mentioned the old freak Frick, who lived on to buy many of the world's greatest paintings from Joe Duveen with the pennies he saved on each employee: here's a news item which may show why many people, not left-wingers, wistfully yearn that Berkmann had been a better shot. Fucking anarchists are as feeble as libertarians outside the classroom...


118 killed in 1891 Frick massacre and mine explosion to get markers [ 2000AD ]


Full

Spoiler

Sunday, September 24, 2000
By Milan Simonich, Post-Gazette Staff Writer







They were slurred in life and forgotten in death.
Now the mass grave dedicated to 118 immigrant laborers killed in 1891 in Westmoreland County will be marked.
Two Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission markers will be placed on the site Friday. A pair of personalized headstones also will be added to the grave, which has never been graced with anything so elaborate.
The recognition is for men and boys who were part of Pennsylvania's struggle for safe and fair working conditions, though most of them never knew they were part of any labor cause.


Of those killed, 109 were coal miners from Eastern Europe. They died Jan. 27, 1891, in the explosion of Mammoth Mine No. 1, near Mount Pleasant. After their deaths, mine safety reforms became a political cause.
The other nine laborers were striking coke oven workers who were shot to death April 2, 1891. Their early morning clash with deputized agents of Frick Coke Co. began with words and escalated to bullets as the deputies fired at their adversaries.


In labor lore, the strikers' deaths became known as the Morewood Massacre, for the men had been employed at Morewood Mines of the Frick coke works.
Most of the bodies from both events ended up in a common trench in St. John's Cemetery in Mount Pleasant. The Pennsylvania Labor History Society believes 79 of the miners and seven of the strikers were buried there.
Many miners were mangled so badly in the explosion that there was little left to bury.


Like the coke workers, they were employed by Henry Clay Frick, the industrialist who was born only minutes away from the spots where the 1891 deaths occurred.
Frick, a millionaire before he was 30, was a legend while he lived. A certain animosity hung over his laborers. Mostly Poles and Slavs, they struggled with English and with the customs of a strange, new world.
They were welcome to pick up a coal shovel and go to work. But if they dared to ask about pay or safety, they were quickly reminded that plenty of other foreigners with strong backs could replace them.
By word of mouth and in the newspapers, they were often referred to as "Hunkies," a generic slur for Eastern Europeans who were considered dim and unimportant.


Only in death did the miners get a bit of empathy. The Mount Pleasant Journal wrote these sentences about the gas explosion that killed them:
Of the 109 who went to work that day, "not one escaped to tell the awful tale of how death came. Even the fire boss, William Snaith, who had made out his report at an early hour, showing that the mine was safe, met the same fate that befell those who were permitted to enter the mine only by his order.


"It was about 9 o'clock that the explosion occurred, and soon a black vapor poured out of the top of the 107-foot shaft, telling those above ground plainer than words could do that death lurked in the depths."
Thirty-one men left families behind. The other 78 were single or mere boys.
Though they remained anonymous in their mass grave at St. John's Cemetery, the miners played a role in Pennsylvania politics. The Mammoth disaster prompted state legislation that strengthened mine safety inspections.


The strikers shot dead were far less sympathetic to the public and the press. They were among 16,000 who walked out for higher wages in the coke region.
A march and rally put them in the path of the company's militia. After the bloodshed, the shooting deaths went largely unquestioned by the citizenry and the newspapers, whose natural sympathies were with Frick.
The seven strikers who died immediately were buried in the same mass grave with the miners.


"These were people who had nothing," said Russell Gibbons, a labor historian. "It's amazing that they didn't end up in a pauper's cemetery."
The coke workers' strike collapsed a month after the shootings.
For more than a century, the stories of these miners and strikers have been largely overlooked. But the state has decided that both are compelling enough to be noted by the historical marker program.
"The events must have statewide or national significance for that to happen," said Marilyn Levin of the state Division of History.
Along with the formal markings of the grave, the Pennsylvania Labor History Society will make both events part of its 27th annual conference Friday and Saturday.
Its theme is the struggle for worker organization and safety -- both centerpieces of Mammoth Mine and Morewood Massacre stories.

Frick, a millionaire before he was 30, was a legend while he lived. A certain animosity hung over his laborers. Mostly Poles and Slavs, they struggled with English and with the customs of a strange, new world.
They were welcome to pick up a coal shovel and go to work. But if they dared to ask about pay or safety, they were quickly reminded that plenty of other foreigners with strong backs could replace them.


Of the 109 who went to work that day, "not one escaped to tell the awful tale of how death came. Even the fire boss, William Snaith, who had made out his report at an early hour, showing that the mine was safe, met the same fate that befell those who were permitted to enter the mine only by his order.
"It was about 9 o'clock that the explosion occurred, and soon a black vapor poured out of the top of the 107-foot shaft, telling those above ground plainer than words could do that death lurked in the depths."
Thirty-one men left families behind. The other 78 were single or mere boys.


The strikers shot dead were far less sympathetic to the public and the press. They were among 16,000 who walked out for higher wages in the coke region.
A march and rally put them in the path of the company's militia. After the bloodshed, the shooting deaths went largely unquestioned by the citizenry and the newspapers, whose natural sympathies were with Frick.
The seven strikers who died immediately were buried in the same mass grave with the miners.






Claverhouse

 

[Chimera]

It depends on what you count as your "identity" as well. To me, my birth name is just a name. In a lot of ways, the handful of names I use online are much more reflective. They surely have more meaning and thought put behind them.
Also, I hate to bring up the creeper point, but I am young, and I have to be somewhat careful...
Or maybe I'm just naturally paranoid. Shrug.​

edit: Basically what Kuu~Kuu said. I should really start reading everything before I post.
...mmmnahhhh. ​

 

[boradicus]

If such invasions of one's privacy seem inherently wrong, most likely there is something to it. It is very stunting to the life and growth of an individual to be restricted in one's communications with others because of the prevalence of such fear. I've had intrusive devices used against me which in themselves generating completely erroneous and damaging conclusions so that I was unable to find and keep jobs in my chosen field despite my character, work ethic, ability and my usually exemplary performance at work. In fact, I should have gone for a wrongful termination suit in one instance, but was too nice and confident in my own abilities to give much consideration to the thought itself.

In retrospect, having lived under observation for a long period of time myself, I would tend to contend with any argument against the freedom to be completely candid and open. This is not for me to determine for another, but is instead a decision that every man or woman must determine for his or herself. In the world of reality programming, we possess a unique ability to display an internal consistency of who we are.

 

[BigApplePi]

"

Anyone who thinks an employer actually cares about them is sadly mistaken. The only motivation for doing a good job should be the satisfaction you take in doing a good job, period.

Editor1. While doing a good job is a great motivator not everyone can love their job. Earning a living so one can enjoy things outside one's job must be a factor. One's boss is entitled to their self-interest and you are only a part of that. They may benefit by keeping you happy, but they have a job just as much as you do.

 

[BigApplePi]

Who are we? A very interesting Q. People, all people are very complex. They have different reactions and experiences with different people. This brings out different things. I want to be myself. But who am I? No less than Socrates addressed this Q.

When I feel inadequate or immature in some area or many areas, I want to grow myself. Somehow that sounds stupid of me and I don't want to admit it. But I value my internet identity so I keep the same one. I value my privacy too so that's why I don't use my legal name but that is a complicated story, isn't it? Many people will fiercely guard their on-line identity. They want to present their position and they want people to know it is them. I know two such people. One was banned four hundred times taking on 1,...., 400 every day until he finally gave up. That proves the desire to be oneself can be enormous.

Other people like to role play. You'd have to ask them their motivation. Perhaps they also don't know who they are but have encountered many possibilities and want to try them out. I say let them have at it. If they role play, I will talk to their role because that is who they are for now. Let them do as they wish. If they get into trouble with their role, then they know what they can make part of their real selves and what they cannot.

Sometimes people object to role players. They want them to admit their past crimes or fear new crimes. I don't know what to say about that. I tend to want them to play it out. It's not just they who are doing something. It is us who react. Maybe we don't know how to react. It's all social practice. INTPs who are shy or are socially inept can get practice. This board can welcome non-INTPs. If we are vulnerable,who's fault is that?

There is a saying, "What does not kill me makes me stronger." I forget the source.

 

[aracaris]

It depends on what you count as your "identity" as well. To me, my birth name is just a name. In a lot of ways, the handful of names I use online are much more reflective. They surely have more meaning and thought put behind them.
Also, I hate to bring up the creeper point, but I am young, and I have to be somewhat careful...
Or maybe I'm just naturally paranoid. Shrug.​

edit: Basically what Kuu~Kuu said. I should really start reading everything before I post.
...mmmnahhhh. ​

Right, but I think that there is something very different about using a different name as an expression of one's self (which could perhaps be seen as baring some similarity to the tradition in certain cultures in which people gain new names upon reaching adulthood, and even in the US some people do actually change their legal names to ones that better represent themselves), and hiding behind a different name because you don't want things you've said being traced back to you. Not to say there's not any overlap, but you've brought up two reasons for using an alias online, and they really are two very distinct reasons.


BigApplePi
It was Frederick Nietzsche that said that.

 

[Jennywocky]

^ Exactly. We lost our loyalty the moment they started pulling that shit. Then they complain when their absentees are through the roof and all the employees are out for themselves!

So long as you aren't in your work clothes, you shouldn't be disciplined for what you do outside of your shift. This excludes things like getting another job, forming a drug habit, or anything else that actually affects the quality of your work.

I agree with you... but I doubt it's gonna change any time soon.

A lot of people just do not have the capacity to compartmentalize like that, and plus if there is a tie back to your company, it will impact business. Cheating on a spouse, holding different political views than a client, being involved in activities someone else dislikes, etc.... all of it ends up getting used against someone if the workplace knows about it... even if it shouldn't... even if the person does an excellent job.

It's not to say it happens everywhere, some corporations and environments are very respectful... but others just aren't.



... So really, it all comes down to a matter of control over self-disclosure. How much of yourself are you willing to put out there and become "public knowledge" and how much do you want to keep under tight wraps? Different people will have different responses, and some MBTI types are far more prone to be protective of themselves while others will not.

 

[Kuu]

It was Frederick Nietzsche that said that.

Friedrich.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

By night, on the computer, I am a boring person in love with the world of logic.

But! By day! I am a SUPER ECCENTRIC HYPER FUN ENTP FTW!!!!

I'm sorry, the previous statement was a lie. I hate you.

 

[BigApplePi]

That's alright as long as I can lie can I hate you too? I don't know which I hate more, your handle or you.

 

[aracaris]

... So really, it all comes down to a matter of control over self-disclosure. How much of yourself are you willing to put out there and become "public knowledge" and how much do you want to keep under tight wraps? Different people will have different responses, and some MBTI types are far more prone to be protective of themselves while others will not.

I would think that extroverts tend to be less protective than introverts online, though I don't have stats to back this up. Then again, I think online is one place where people whom are really pretty strong introverts, can really start behaving a lot more like how one would expect extroverts to act.

Part my own personal reasons for bringing up this issue is because I'm a web-designer (and also do some blogging), and I end up having to please multiple clients, but I also keep a day job.

As a web-designer I always have to consider the possibility of a current or prospective employer finding some website I've made for some client or other offensive, or there potentially being a conflict of interest issue.

If I really need to I can take steps to make sure that it isn't too easy to find out I was the one whom made a particular website. I can certainly think of a few situations in which I wouldn't want to make it common knowledge that I designed or maintained some site or another for a client. I haven't done any yet, but if I ever did any site with highly adult content I don't think I'd want my name associated with it, I don't think I'd really want to go in that direction with my business anyhow though.

I guess when it comes down to it you can't please everyone, and are bound to offend someone, or have the interests of one employer conflict with those of another, but where to draw the line I think is pretty obvious in some cases, but can become a difficult issue.

 

[Geminii]

Factors:

- easier to separate online interactions from work and offline circles, and (with different handles) even separate interactions with different online groups. Why should you be restricted in who you talk to just because you know, or are related to, or have to work with someone who would get their knickers in a twist if they knew?

- can actually be easier to create a coherent online identity. My RL name is exceedingly common, but Google my handle and I'm one of the top results (I think there are only a couple of other people using the same handle worldwide). I'm actually easier to find by using my handle.

- some degree of disconnection from consequences. This can be both good and bad. It means people are more likely to reveal fundamental truths about themselves the longer they're around with a given handle, rather than put up a false social smokescreen. However, particularly in the short term, people can also go hog-wild and be complete cockmonglers.

- anonymity, which operates similarly to the disconnection mentioned above. People can be braver when they're anonymous, but it's up to their personality whether that will make them a more relaxed, secure, mature internet presence, or whether they'll set new records in douchebaggery.

 

[RandeKnight]

I try to keep my work and private life separate.
So most of my friends don't actually know/remember my real name, and unless it somehow becomes relevant, why should they care?
So different name, different email addresses - I keep the same personality and RW address so if someone really wants to find out, then there's nothing stopping them working it out, but if an employer does a basic google on me, they won't find any of my personal life, only entries in professional forums.

 

[s0nystyle]

i use my RL name with people b/c it's easier to stay in contact with them. Everyone on my team has each others' phone # even though we're sprinkled throughout the US and Canada. I guess it makes the experience of talking to people more personal.

 

[Jah]

While on the subject: http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/02/can-you-trust-a-facebook-profile.php

 

[walfin]

Since we are on the topic of handles, might I just say that every forum demands a typecast, for which we have to return an interface which may be different from an invocation of query interface in another forum. This applies to the forum of type real life as well as Internet forums.

The true object is, of course, still you.

 

[Black Rose]

People piss me off and it hurts me emotional. I never say f*** you to anyone online or offline. My passiveness is a self defense mechanism. I don't want to make enemy's. I don't share my personal info but if I like you a friendship is possible.

 

[s0nystyle]

People piss me off and it hurts me emotional. I never say f*** you to anyone online or offline. My passiveness is a self defense mechanism. I don't want to make enemy's. I don't share my personal info but if I like you a friendship is possible.

NICE GRAMMAR LULZ