Sell Your Demographics To A Corporation -- For Free

How desperate are you to keep up with people you know? How willing are you to do what it takes to stay connected with people for work or school? What are you willing to give in order to meet new people?

The days of safer openness on the internet are gone. In the days of personal web pages, only a certain percentage of the population was online regularly, so those who chose to provide everyone with their personal information were only allowing that small fraction to view it. Back then people still clung to anonymity, however. A user might provide their name somewhere on a page, either for copyright purposes, for due credit to be given for any art they might have posted, or as a general gesture of openness. Most of the time, users chose handles, nicknames or usernames. Although another user anywhere in the world could potentially discover any other user's ip address or location, it took some know-how, but other than that the internet remained a place where people could safely engage in exchange with others without fear of actual reprisals  on the outside. While some people would argue this provided people with a protective shield to hide behind whilst slingshotting flaming turds at others, the conflicts caused by those anonymous intellectual offenders were limited to the internet, and forums and chatrooms used the same systems of moderation and banning they do today. Everyone else who played by the unspoken rules of civility was free to have conversations and express their opinions truly openly and without fear of reprisal or prejudice in real life.

When choosing to use Facebook, not enough people actually consider the benefits versus the consequences. 

Naive, or Overly Optimistic?

Providing people with information about one's self in "the information age" requires trust and acceptance. Access to basic personal data allows people to reach you from anywhere in the world in one form or another. Companies and corporations can legally sell your name, address, phone number and/or other details about you to others. Stalkers and predators are more able to find you. Your personal life will become part of everyone else's life. 

"People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people - and that social norm is just something that has evolved over time."

-Mark Zuckerburg

While this could be true, there's no indication whatsoever of the trend away from predatory activities of corporations and individuals towards others. "Cyberbullying" among children and teenagers, data mining and information commerce, and police and judicial involvement in the lives of citizens to settle disputes have all increased as a result of social networking and disclosure of personal information online. There has been no proportionate decrease in the predatory social nature of people to allow for such trust in others. While people within a network which requires the use of a real name might feel kept in check by that requirement and it's lack of anonymity, it's very easy to provide false information and create a Facebook account. Not only will you not be anonymous, a user with false information would be anonymous among others who aren't. To use a real identity within a network of hundreds of millions of people is to put blind trust in all of them, and to expect their intentions and actions are good, at the very least. Human history personal experience of millions of people prove that a percentage of people aren't, and the capabilities of people to harm others in brutal and sadistic ways has been proven repeatedly.

Popular Conflict Versus Homogenization

If disclosure of personal information requires trust, disclosure of personal and political views without the promise of at least partial anonymity requires acceptance, or acceptance of the discloser of the consequences. Yet paranoia of government surveillance and corporate overreach have remained the same. Conflict in politics and opposing views on a number of issues among people has not decreased over the last decade. Some might argue it's actually become more prevalent. Although social networking has allowed more people to communicate much faster and therefore be more aware of what is happening around them, it also allows people to know and point out the differences between each other and act on those differences within their social circles. With this information, users are given a choice to accept or reject people more easily and with greater ease. Within a workplace or academic environment this can lead to problems and conflict. Social exclusion in both realms can be detrimental to employees and students who wish to be treated equally despite their differences with the majority or with those who have the most influence. There is enough evidence in even recent history which proves people are capable of various stages of social exclusion, pressure, intimidation, favoritism, and persecution based on the religion, beliefs, ethnicity, social status, sexual orientation and personalities of others -- particularly those in the minority. There have already been enough cases of suicide, harassment and public humiliation in the US attributed to social networking to warrant a trend back towards anonymity, or at the very least, a serious attempt at a minimum age requirement for Facebook accounts.

While an ultimate (and idealized) benefit of social networking without anonymity might be "openness" and acceptance, two consequences arise: conflict and/or subordination to "social norms." Among people who wish to participate in social circles, or those who are forced to share space with others in the workplace or school, subordination to social norms in terms of Facebook might take the form of extreme vigilance in maintaining privacy settings, or providing very limited information in terms of attributes by which they might be persecuted for when creating or updating a profile. But if the goal of Facebook is openness (and therefore acceptance), doesn't limiting one's sharing due to social pressure defeat the purpose of Facebook's existence? Not if you have nothing to hide. 

If a user becomes more like those who pressure him or her, they are more easily digested by others. While some might find changing beliefs or viewpoints to be more compatible to be easy, others don't. There are many personal attributes which can't be changed or even hidden so easily, and even the perceived differences among people can lead to persecution. The supposed "social norm" of openness and acceptance may have evolved over time -- for some.

Why Bother?

When I was a young teenager, my mother had to change our phone number after harassing phone calls made by boys attempting to contact my sister. We'd receive calls in the middle of the night, hear the phone ring repeatedly after my sister and mother asked we not be called again. Everyone has had bad experiences with telemarketers. Is keeping up with others who don't mind risking their security worth it? It's entirely possible the mature members of society who feel free to let their identities and accompanying facts about themselves be known to all who might have access are experiencing all the benefits and few if none of the drawbacks of not being anonymous, while others are just learning that it isn't worth it. Unfortunately some people aren't willing to realize the costs might not outweigh the risk.