cal value stems from the quality and quantity of information it has about its users. While it is unlikely that Mark Zuckerberg designed Facebook to be an identity service, that is what it has become. Google’s competitive move is explicitly an identity play. Yet, rather than creating a value proposition in which users would naturally share their real names, they made it a requirement.

Larry Lessig argues that four forces regulate social systems: the market, the law, social norms, and technology or architecture. 4 Social norms drove the “real names” culture of Facebook, but Google’s approach was purely driven by the market and reinforced by corporate policies and technology. Their failure to create the conditions in which newcomers felt comfortable sharing their names—and their choice to restrict commonly used pseudonyms— resulted in a backlash. Rather than designing an ecosystem in which social norms worked to their favor, their choice to punish dissidents undermined any goodwill that early adopters had toward the service.

implicit Assumptions
about “Real names”

Although some companies implement “real names” policies for business reasons, many designers believe such policies are necessary to encourage healthy interactions in online communities. Implicit is the notion that in “real life,” people have to use their “real names” so why shouldn’t they be required to do so online? Yet, how people use names in unmediated interactions is by no means similar to what happens online. 5

When someone walks into a cafe, they do reveal certain aspects of themselves while obfuscating other aspects of their identity. Through their bodies, they disclose information about their gender, age, and race. Through fashion and body language, people convey information about their sexuality, socioeconomic status, religion, ethnicity, and tastes. This information is not always precise and, throughout history, people have gone a long way to obscure what is revealed. While people often possess documents in their wallets that convey their names, this is not how most people initiate interactions.

The practice of sharing one’s name

Privacy is not
about restricting
information; it is
about revealing
appropriate
information in
a given context.

is embedded in rituals of relationship building. People do not share their names with every person they encounter. Rather, names are offered as an introductory gesture in specific situations to signal politeness and openness.

While the revelation of a person’s name may link them to their family or signal information about their socioeconomic position, most names in a Western context provide little additional information beyond what is already conveyed through the presence of the individual. As such, they simply serve as an identifier for people to use when addressing one another. Online, the stakes are different.

Online, there are no bodies. By default, people are identified through IP addresses. Thus, it is common to lead with a textual identifier. In the days of Usenet and IRC, that identifier was typically a nickname or a handle, a username, or an email address. With Facebook and Google Plus, people are expected to use their names.

The power of search also shifts the
dynamics. Although it is possible for
wizards in Hogwarts to scream the
equivalent of “grep” into the ether and
uncover others’ location, background
information, and relationships, this is
not something mere mortals can do in
everyday life. Until the Internet arrived.
Today, information about people can
be easily accessed with just a few key-
strokes. Through search, the curious
can gain access to a plethora of informa-
tion, often taken out of context. Without
the Internet, inquiring about someone
takes effort and provokes questions.
Asking around often requires address-
ing a common response, “Why do you
want to know?” Yet, search engines
empower the curious to obtain—and
misinterpret—information without any
social consequences. That shifts how
people relate online.

Privacy and names

Accountability is commonly raised as one of the reasons behind which people should provide identifiable information in online settings. When people prefer not to share their names, they are assumed to have something to hide. Many people claim people are better behaved and more “honest” when their identifying information is available. While there is no data that convincingly supports or refutes this, it is important to note that both Facebook and face-to-face settings continue to be rife with meanness and cruelty.

Even if we collectively value accountability, accountability is more than an avenue for punishment; accountability is about creating the social context in which people can negotiate the social conditions of appropriate behavior. Most social norms are regulated through incentive mechanisms, not punishment. Punishment—and, thus, the need to identify someone outside of the mediated context—is really a last-re-sort mechanism. The levers for accountability change by social context, but accountability is best when it is rooted in the exchange.

There are people who abuse other’s trust, violate social norms, or purposefully obscure themselves in order to engage in misdeeds. This is not just a problem online. But most people who engage in lightweight obfuscation are not trying to deceive. Instead, they are trying to achieve privacy in public environments.

Wanting privacy is not akin to wanting to be a hermit. Just because someone wants to share information does not mean they want to give up on privacy. When people seek privacy, they are looking to have some form of control over a social situation. To achieve that control, people must have agency and they must have enough information to properly assess the social context. Privacy is not about restricting information; it is about revealing appropriate information in a given context.

People feel as though their privacy has been violated when their agency has