Which model will be most effective and self sustaining on the internet. Should everybody be faceless or everyone be identified? Falling between either is not really an option because everyone will attempt to go faceless.

I think it's a matter of how much an online user is willing to disclose since in reality, you could never fully disclose everything. If you also look into traditional offline behavior, people always feel entitled to a certain level of privacy and that is something that is apparently reflective of their online behavior as well.

Have to agree with Sherwin here. It's a balance. Some people are extrovert, some are introvert, and I think that reflects the way we engage in stuff online. Personally I'm very introvert in my everyday life, but being able to 'hide' behind my alias Phaxn, I have found a way to be more open when engaging online. As an example here on Branch!
And if anyone should have interest in who is hiding behind the alias I don't believe it's that difficult to figure out with the help of some googling. But that doesn't change that my alias is a personality of mine that is different from how I am as a person. :)

One of the big problems with the internet is that when you write a public comment on a website or engage in a discussion, your comments and opinions isn't only there for the moment of the discussion, as with spoken discussions. It stays in place on the website - often for years, expressing an opinion you might not agree with anymore.

And this is the primary reason for me to want to be (somewhat) anonymous online, when engaging publicly in discussions or commenting on something. :)

There are definite benefits to anonymity or pseudonymity.

The most often cited (and most obvious) benefit of pseudonymity is the protection of individuals whose freedom of speech isn't necessarily upheld in their country. This extends not only to oppressive political regimes, but also broken social systems.

The current social temperature of a lot of websites is unfairly biased towards the same gender/race/demographic as offline American culture. I think until that changes--until one's background, sex, and cultural heritage really doesn't affect how much they are valued by the online community--pseudonymity and anonymity give users a "buffer" against discrimination by readers & commenters.

Balance is a good option but is it possible with so many different viewpoints? Also, it is becoming increasingly difficult to be anonymous on the internet.

@Dave

Of course it's possible, it's more possible when there's many viewpoints because what you find is that there's a balanced call for each.

Both anonymity and disclosure have their place. Disclosure gives credence to a voice, when you can see someone's past and present, see where they've been and what they've said it lends credibility to their words - they aren't just a voice in a crowd. In many places this is necessary - in news and science it is a requirement.

But anonymity allows us to talk about those things which are hard to discuss. Anonymity allows us to push forwards in a way that disclosure doesn't. We can dissent, express our opinion and our logic without worrying about a personal backlash.

In addition, balance is a state that you should always aim to achieve, so it's always a matter of finding the right balance for the right time and situation.

I used to be very shy on the internet until I heard Cheryl Sandberg say something like 'sharing is effective only if you come out about who you really are'. Began to realise that maybe I was hiding something and so stayed away from FB and others (to my own inconvenience) because there were issues or people in the past that I did not want to reconnect with. Phaxn's point about things not just being said in the moment but sort of permanent is SO true and maybe it would be wise professionally or otherwise to have a pseudonym. Will consider that... Then again I feel the people I respect, people that are interested in thinking about things deeply, understand that we all have opinions that evolve and we all say stupid things...or I do.

@/ /, you've hit upon one of the biggest reasons people get involved in pseudonymity: feeling less afraid of damaging your image--there's two sides of "your image", though...and pseudonymity only really protects one.

I'm not a psychologist, so I can't put this in absolute, categorical terms, but I think there's a large part of how we view ourselves that's connected to our name--through it, we can build associations of who we are and what we can do. Since the Internet is often a leap into a new direction, representing ourselves by our real names online can give us a kind of "blank slate" with which we can feel less afraid of exploring a new side of ourselves.

There are undoubtedly nefarious ways that people can use this "blank slate"--to harm and disparage others--and I think that's something that's discussed a lot in regards to the negatives of pseudonymity. But there's a positive side as well to which I can attest.

I didn't start with an online presence until a few years ago. At that point, the idea of having and building an online presence was a little intimidating, and starting under a pseudonym which which I had very strong associations of risk-taking and adventure, I was able to "put myself out there" as an Internet-connected person without feeling quite so self-conscious. It protected my image of "me" that I developed IRL until I was comfortable with the digital "me".

This is the side of identity that pseudonymity most consistently protects--the reflective side, the side that you yourself see. (BTW, full digital name origin story here for the curious: youtu.be)

The side that pseudonymity DOESN'T protect (that many people assumes it does) is the external identity. Even though a lot of people try very hard to keep their digital and physical selves disconnected, in many cases the links can be made if someone really wants to know. This is why I very adamantly believe that you should never post anything online, even under a pseudonym, that you would not be willing to discuss with employers, family, co-workers, friends, etc.

You are so right about the name Jacke, I never really thought about it but every time I have learnt a new language I have adopted another name. So for example in China I'm 'Baobei'. It would make sense if you view the internet like another ecosystem that you should chose a name (new/related or otherwise) that expresses who you are in this context.
The other reason I think people use pseudonymity (big red line under that word) is that people seem crueler and more angry on the net. Just look at techcrunch...

Ah, TechCrunch.

That's definitely the negative side of pseudonymity. I think it's something to take quite seriously, as it's become pretty common knowledge that people have used pseudonymity to "shelter" them while spilling such a massive amount of vituperative hate to cause people to turn to (at worst) self-harm and suicide. That cannot be taken lightly in the discussion.