Thread by @zugzwanged

I just read this piece by @KSPrior, who is always worth reading: factsandtrends.net/2018/07/16/9-w…. However, I was surprised to find that I disagreed—in some cases strongly—with a number of her points. Here are a few reasons why: 1. A turn to etiquette, though understandable and well >>

>> meant, ultimately fails to wrestle with the way that things such as etiquette and custom depend upon well defined spaces and groups. In the absence of these things, etiquette will be highly contestable. A place like Twitter is less like going to a foreign country, where you >>

>> should get a sense of national customs before you arrive, so you don't offend anyone. It is more like a great number of different peoples with different customs trying to get on in the same ill-defined place. And anyone asserting that their customs and etiquette are the >>

>> *right* customs and etiquette are probably being insensitive to the differing customs and etiquette that others are working in terms of. 2. I think one of the biggest problems on social media is that we all treat social media personae *too much* like real people when they >>

>> are artificial *representations* of persons, not actual persons. The greater danger we face is of identifying ourselves (and also others) too strongly with these representations. 3. The expectation that our online personality should reflect our real life personality invites >>

>> a dangerous preoccupation with personal branding and a sort of virtue-signalling that accompanies that. However, many of the IRL things that are most defining of us cannot easily be represented online—belonging to a community, family, neighbourhood, faithful action and >>

>> commitment, worship, age, class, disability, etc., etc. The Internet is a realm of often hollow words and shallow images. It is a spectacle: we need to be careful not to misrecognize it as reality and over-invest ourselves in it over concrete reality. Our online personae >>

>> should we recognized as thin aspects of our personalities, rather than fuller revelations of them. 4. A disproportionate number of the very best people on places like Twitter are pseudonymous or very obscure in their identities. Pseudonymity is not anonymity: it can involve >>

>> a consistent persona over a long period of time (do you really need to know who 'Scott Alexander' is personally to appreciate Slate Star Codex?). Pseudonymous people can be great because the focus is exchanging ideas and things we are passionate about, not identities. 5. If >>

>> you consider the way that people seek to destroy others with controversial opinions and impose conformity through social outrage, threatening employment, etc. pseudonymity makes a great deal of sense. Many of the most thoughtful people out there don't have the freedom to >>

>> express their thoughtful opinions without risking their employment. 6. It is important to recognize that every online persona is like a small tip of an iceberg, with a vast bulk of context beneath, of which we are unaware. In any given conversation, a great number of >>

>> different contexts will simultaneously be at play and often colliding. Online, we can be expected to be all things to all men simultaneously. 7. Most people are probably best off engaging MUCH less with people with whom they disagree on social media. How often does this >>

>> yield more light than heat? Better engage with people you disagree with more IRL and less online, unless you are not strongly identified with your online persona.

When thinking about integrity and consistency between online and offline identity, it is important to consider just how ridiculously WEIRD our online behaviour is, if we consider it in terms of our offline worlds. Would you disclose the details of your identity in your profile >>

>> to all and sundry offline? Or allow semi-private conversations to be recorded and rendered accessible to random strangers? Or discuss your personal opinions in front of a vast and undifferentiated assortment of people in one place? Or allow your speech to be interrupted by >>

>> advertising? Or post pictures of your family in places where practically anyone could see them? Etc., etc.

Greater consistency with our offline selves will lead, I believe, to a radical and healthy limiting of our disclosure of identity in many respects.