Netfolks, gentle and otherwise:

If the internet is made in fact of "tubes" or "pipes" of data, then I humbly submit:

If an item is totally congruent with the finest properties of the internet and its inhabitants, would that item not in fact be "tubular"?

As many of you may know, I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, so I go to a number of local tech events. I'm also autonymous (possessing a self-chosen name) on the internet, so the #nymwars are of deep interest to me. I know Skud. Rowan Thunder, who I know better as rising through Dreamwidth, stayed with me for a week and a half. After watching the beginning of the #nymwars, I became nonplussed at the end of July.

I didn't feel quite right about joining the Google+ meetup that was announced, but when the Silicon Valley Google Technology Users Group meetup announced that it was having one of its regular meetings (which I often attend) devoted to the topic, I jumped on it. (Six minutes after the email went out, I'd snagged the 244th of 250 spots.) I did want a chance to get to hear what the product evangelist would say, and maybe get a chance to ask some questions.

( Read more... )

From the way the power of the +1 and the way the implementation of the +1 button could be done across the web, complete with the mockup of the "more like this" pictures for Flickr, I got the distinct impression that the valuable data that Google is wanting to collect is the +1s, and having those +1s attached to a single, persistent, and knowable entity.

( Read more... )

I had three very interesting, very different, conversations with three different Googlers, two of whom I am going to decline to name, in part because I didn't get the one guy's name, and in part because it was that sort of conversation with the other guy.

( The first Googler knew Skud. )

The second Googler I conversed with was a dev, and was very fascinated by my use case, although he was limited in what he could say about the future plans of the service without a boatload of lawyers present. ("Nonplussed" was not new to him; there are a bunch more really punishingly bad plays on words that the devs use a lot.) He's been following the whole debate over identity, and views identity as a sort of continuum between, say, the IRS on the one end (ID name, seriously persistent, lawful) and 4chan on the other (no name, no persistence, epically unruly), and said that Google+ was not aiming for either of those extremes. Which was interesting, especially in light of the speculation that Google's true goal is to connect the wallet names with the click data.

I mentioned that part of the matter was something that she (the user who'd mentioned "my husband, my boyfriend" was nearby) had inadvertently brought up -- there are aspects of my public online identity where I do not want to have that conversation with my co-workers: it's not relevant to them, and it's none of their business. I'm queer, I do some activist work, and there are other things that are just not the sort of things that one talks about with co-workers. (I used "activist" as shorthand for the whole complex package for much of the conversation.) He started to say that I could use circles to manage that. I pointed out the problem: I have over 10 years of very public internet history under this, my real name (which is how I referred to it throughout the conversation). I told the story of how I'd walked in to rising's hangout, and waved at the participants, and Rowan had introduced me by my birth name diminutive, and the hangout people had said hi [illustrated by a small wave]; when I'd introduced myself as Azz, the reaction was OMG HI AZZ [big, full-arm wave]. That's my real name. Yet I have ID in my birth name, and work under my birth name; I was trained that a good principle for internet presence is to never say anything about your workplace under the name you use at work that you wouldn't want your boss talking to you about the following week. There are people I went to school with who know me under that before my real name existed. I might have been able to use circles if I'd started out that way, but I didn't, and I no longer have crossing the streams as a viable option.

We talked a bit about the common names policy, and he revealed that there was a bit of a grey area in there, and it was in there deliberately; I concluded from his tone that this was so the legit people who fell into the grey area could get a pass, and the people who were trying to pull shenanigans could get thumped. He did mention, explicitly, the example of Lady Gaga, who everyone knows by her stage name; they wouldn't try to force Lady Gaga to use ID name. (Left not brought up: Lady Gaga is an autonym that fits into the two-name format, vs. Skud, who is a mononym-autonym.) He agreed with me that due to my not being commonly known by a single name, that the common names policy did not really fit my case, and that since I am still known by my work name... There was much gesturing and "grey area" came up quite a bit. So I was very right to have come to the conclusion that I did when I deleted my G+ account.

He suggested that perhaps I should try signing up for Google+ under my internet name anyway, if it was possible that the name validation wouldn't catch me. I produced one of my printer-paper business cards and flourished it at him. He took one look at the name printed boldly across the top, Azure Lunatic, and that was the end of that suggestion. "That's really not a name I could get a job under," I pointed out. He saw my point (and asked if he could keep my card). And there's really no need for the whole internet to know where I work. I've been relatively lucky, as I'm obscure enough to have not attracted many griefers, but I've been in the circles of people with the sorts of griefers who are happy to fling poo at anyone remotely attached to that person, and those are not the sorts of people who need to be able to follow me home or to my workplace.

Again, he saw my point, but was really concerned about the way this would open up to people having multiple profiles: they really want to have all the +1s generated by a single person connected to a single profile. I pointed out that if it came down to it, my work name's internet presence's deepest thoughts are that gee, she makes coffee an awful lot, but maybe she makes it a little less than she thought she did. [Laughter from the peanut gallery, to whom I was not properly introduced, but who I did have a conversation about Sharpie-hacking with.] So I could totally do without having a G+ profile under my work name; the important stuff I do, the activist and my 10 years of public data stuff, is under my real name. I pointed out that I've linked the email addresses, so it would be pretty easy to tell from their side that there was a connection, and I would be A-OK with having to choose which email to allow to have a profile.

It was a really delightful conversation, and was in itself worth having gone. He was one of those people who puts more weight to use cases upon having met face-to-face people who are affected by various policies, so I was very glad that I was there to represent for us autonymous folk.

( And then the third guy. :( )

This is written by theoryofgravity, under some form of Creative Commons attribution license, and I'm reproducing it here so I have a copy to hand, since the original place it was posted is lost somewhere in time and the depths of the internet.

I am so fucking sick of the "it's only the internet" argument. It seems like any jackass who can string three words together and call it a sentence feels as though s/he can be absolved from any rank stupidity they might spit out by saying "it's only the internet!" alongside the secondary implication that "if you take this seriously you must be a big loser with no life."

Fuck that noise. For those who've not caught a ride on the clue train yet, the internet is not just for losers anymore. The internet is a hugely influential cultural medium that is rapidly outpacing traditional print sources of media, as well as television and film. It is most assuredly not "only" the internet; the internet is not some "fake" world, it is a legitimate and identifiable community despite the any arguments against it as inauthentic due to a lack of physical proximity and contact between members. The internet is an imagined community only insofar as all communities are imaginary, and a person who stakes a good part of their identity in their use of livejournal isn't a whole lot different than someone who put an Amerikan flag on their car because they believe that it somehow connects them to every other stupid motherfucker who happens to live inside the invisible lines that define "America."*

The internet is a hugely powerful resource and mouthpiece in which a huge segment of the population (excepting, of course, the sizable groups who cannot afford computers, internet access, or training on how to use any of the above) is free to put forth their ideas and opinions and potentially reach a significant number of people -- at the very least, far more people than you might reach by standing on an apple crate on a street corner and proselytizing to everyone who walks by. The internet is not a throwaway world in which you cannot be held accountable for the stupid shit you say.

In conclusion: it's not "only the internet". Personally, as a cultural theorist this make me want to fucking throttle people. Just we can't see you doesn't mean we can't see the ugliness in the words you've chosen.

*Pretend there is a footnote here for Benedict Anderson.

Oh, honey. If you think keeping tabs on exes through the magic of the internet is "cyberspying" or "cyberstalking", you are really not prepared for the World of the Internet, are you.

Let us go down the list.

Z, preschool: I located him on Facebook at one point, but didn't add him as we really didn't have much contact with each other in high school, which was where we re-met.
J, 1st grade: Good luck even finding a common name like that on the internet. Plus we really didn't have much of a relationship, just me with a crush on him.
J, 1st through 5th grades: I don't think he has an internet presence, but I correspond with his sister (who is my birthday-twin) from time to time.
"Kermit", 6th/7th-ish grades: Yeah, I Googled him up a while ago, found out he was having some awesome times, started e-mailing back and forth.
"Bugs", 9th grade: Savil was trying to find him, but she doesn't seem to have had any luck. I really have no desire to re-open that connection, not even to chatter.
"Scott", 9th grade, massively unrequited: Every now and then I try and Google him, but he has a double whammy in the anonymous department: a common name that also has a famous person sharing it. I'd like to say hi and wish him well and see what he's up to. Out of everybody, I think I've devoted the most time and energy to attempting to track him down.
pyrogenic, 1995 and 1996, unrequited: Notice how there's a mutual LJ friending going on. We occasionally run into each other locally as well.
brooklynmili, 1995 and 1996: Also mutual LJ friending, though we found each other on Facebook (through Josh) first before connecting through X-Files on LJ.
H, 1996? 1997?: Every now and then I search for her. I wish we'd kept in contact, but she has her own priorities.
Good Old Shawn, 1995-1999, g-d help us all: I know who and where he tends to be online, we have each other's numbers, but for the most part we do our own things.
The Drunken Computer Science Major, 1998: I think I tried Googling him some time back, maybe, but didn't get anywhere. I have no real attachment in any case.
"River", 1999-ish: We have each other added on MySpace; I should probably poke him sometime, say hi, see what's up.
BJ, 1999-ish: He's blocked on any form of contact of mine that he had that I knew of. I got some gossip about him through another ex of his a while ago, but my only real interest in him and his life is so I can keep it clear of mine. I want him to have never existed. I would be happy if his parents had never met. I think I occasionally try Googling for obituary records on him just in case he's dead now.
digitalambiance, 2001: Mutually LJ friended, but he doesn't use his LJ much these days. I really have no desire to search for what he's up to, and in any case he did just ping me the other day with news.
Y, sometime between 2001-2005: After the Incident, I cut contacts. I think once in the past few years he came to my attention again (interacting with a mutual friend), and I looked at his LJ, but I had no desire to stealthily subscribe in any fashion.
marxdarx, a weird affair sometime in the 2001-2005 range: Sometimes I Google him to see if there's more trainwreck. I am not adding him back on Facebook, though. I quite sweetly and sincerely wish him the hell away from me and mine.
Figment, 2005: Mutually LJ friended, but he doesn't use his LJ much anymore. Sometimes he pings me; I don't pry.
My best friend, 2001-present, unrequited: No need to Google him; he has no public internet presence to speak of (I'm the one among his close friends who does not pester him to get a Facebook account), and we talk regularly so there's no need to in any case.


My hobby-related habits are such that while the amount of time and effort I put into a single round of searching is nothing short of alarming, the fact remains that I will do this for any topic, and not just an ex. On the whole, I spend more time and energy attempting to track down suspected spammers, scammers, and other internet lowlifes (both in total and per individual) than I do trying to track down exes. Generally I either know who they are online and what they're up to, or I just don't want to know.

A bunch of you who know me on here know me from when I first tiptoed onto the internet as an interactive forum, not just a place where you can go to find cracktastic fanfiction involving the total obliteration of Barney from the universe, or the place that enables one to chat back and forth with one's True Love's awesome girlfriend. I sidled onto the Bujold list as a teenager unsure of her place in the universe. By example, I learned how people on the internet were supposed to conduct themselves.

It wasn't perfect. It never is. But my parents were worried (quietly) about me running into Evil Influences with Strangers They'd Never Met, and I'm happy to say that their fears were unfounded. No one from the internet abducted me, although (much later) I've certainly now explored the evils of Strong Drink and Lascivious Fiction with people from the internet. But at that point in time, I was welcomed with age-appropriate open arms into a nurturing community of folk who didn't want to judge me based on my inability to speak in public or humiliate me for having an opinion that differed in any significant way from the prevailing community sentiment. By the time I was released onto the rest of the internet, I'd already learned for good that no matter how roughly the rest of the internet played, I was raised to behave better than that.

This is more than just my periodic ode to my internet origins.

I'm not going anywhere yet, and I'm certainly not going to disappear from LJ. I have too much community here, I have the Support crew, and I genuinely enjoy my work with suggestions. However, synecdochic and xb95, who were both employees of LiveJournal in the past, and who have been steeped in the open source and sane management ethos that old LiveJournal users will fondly recall from the days when brad was (usually) the biggest spark to drama in town, are starting up Dreamwidth.

Dreamwidth is to be a code fork of LiveJournal -- not just another clone site, but a site taking LJ's code as a starting place and asking, "What if?" and developing it in another direction. There's Project WTF, which takes Friends, and splits it into its logical components, Watching and Trusted. Importing an existing journal from LiveJournal or a clone is in the works, with exciting discussion about how exactly one should go about archiving comments. They helped form LiveJournal into the pre-SUP, pre-6A service many of us got to know and love. They've done this before. brad was never about running a business. synecdochic was raised to it.

It's open source. There are a lot of the same usernames around. I have made a home these many years with LJ Support. I get that same feeling of home with the Dreamwidth people. I wouldn't hesitate to introduce my parents to the discussion list (although perhaps not IRC, because Dad doesn't need to learn that much about fisting).

Stuff is scheduled to start speeding up around about February. I don't know how fast it'll go after that.

Expanded slightly from a comment at the meeting of pyrogenic and metaphorge from different sectors of my social group

The internet gets a bad reputation because you can meet all sorts of weird people there. People who might not make it past the first "Ewww, they smell funny" in person can slip into one's life in a meeting of intellect as long as they have the courtesy formulae for their section of the internet memorized.

Face to face, you have a meeting of social graces before you have a meeting of minds, and people with the bad social graces get weeded out, and one can still be pleasant with people with good social graces and poor minds.

On the other hand, on the internet one has a meeting of minds before one has a meeting of social graces, so the people with the poor minds (and the poor online social graces) get weeded out first. Upon meeting face-to-face, one still has to weed for social graces.