I mentioned recently, in light of the turmoil over the WaPo reporter fired because of leaked emails, that this could be the end of innocence for a generation accustomed to living in public. It turns out not really to be true that if everything is on the record, nothing can be embarrassing. "Will S," a college student whose real identity I know, writes to describe the way he has prepared for this new reality:
The most interesting part of the "anything you write will inevitably become public" reaction is that it falls exactly in line with Mark Zuckerberg's [of Facebook] panned* comments about the end of privacy. Essentially, we have come close now to placing all written work (save handwritten diaries) into the public sphere. Jefferson and Adams famously began to preserve their letters as they (supposedly) came to realize the historical value of what they wrote; how long until e-mail inboxes are archived, to be opened 50 years later?
When I first started into social media, on Wikipedia, I made a set of deliberate decisions about what would be "[his real name]" (wikipedia, Facebook, blog, twitter, tumblr) and what wouldn't be, written under a pseudonym (social media site, Daily Kos, RedState). As a result, I have created two online personas of written work that aren't essentially different people - and because I can't trust that they won't be dug up someday (even the fake name), neither of the accounts is actually "me," but instead only aspects. The pseudonym, for example, is much more willing to be opinionated.
My existence on the internet might be with my real name, but my suspicion is that the vast majority of people are creating Avatars of themselves on the internet, untagging Facebook photos and writing blog posts to fit the image they wish to project. Weigel is jobless because he chose not to maintain the avatar.
* I wrote back to say that I thought Zuckerberg had been justly panned, since he had arranged Facebook with a "nudge"-style bias toward making, tricking, or luring people into revealing more about themselves than they really should. "Will S." replied
Zuckerberg: Certainly tasteless in terms of Facebook's policy approach of making more stuff public by default, and making some info impossible to hide.
I would agree that privacy should be the default, despite the monetary incentives to choose otherwise. Facebook has a responsibility, especially since reactions are muddled given our lack of a established electronic etiquette...
It's also bound up in that trust used to be opt-in; finding out someone's preferences and personal background had to be accomplished by hearing from people individually. Now that we post those things online where they can be shared universally without effort, to deliberately withhold them is a different message of mistrust that we may not feel comfortable sending out. I'm not sure where this market force will lead.
Lastly, I don't know if we want to protect these spaces - electronic communication are already cold and prone to misunderstanding; perhaps it's best to encourage face to face Skype, iPhone, etc. conversations as the definite vehicle for private talks (medium = message, etc). But that leaves out the historic long letter - now relegated to e-mail, where heartfelt messages of emotion and more standard communications like this one are put in the same medium. We still need a paperless way to be formal.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.