“Randi Zuckerburg Runs in the Wrong Direction” on “An Abuse of Power”

In Eva Galperin’s Randi Zuckerburg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online and Danah Boyd’s ”Real Names” Policies are an Abuse of Power, both bloggers criticize Google Plus and Facebook’s “real names” policy and make vivid references to the “nymwars.” Both posts are knocking Zuckerburg (Facebook’s Marketing Director) for recent comments she made regarding the issue. However, while Galperin aims her fire directly at Zuckerburg, Boyd directs her argument more broadly at any party ‘enforcing “real names” policies in online spaces.

Galperin advocates for protection of “freedom of expression”. Boyd advocates against “abuse of power.” In my opinion, these two tasks are essentially the same thing. Both bloggers are arguing on behalf of individuals and free expression. Let me say this again, both bloggers are arguing on behalf of individuals and free expression. This should come as no surprise given their industry and likelihood. However, what I find most interesting is both bloggers use their real names in their blogs. Does this give them a louder voice in the discussion pseudonymity? Could be.

Both bloggers make reference to the online users that pseudonyms can both protect and give voices to. They argue on behalf of the weak and the victimized, a noble pursuit. Still, they attack Facebook and Google+, taking comments and decisions out of context to represent them as the power-hungry big businesses, who couldn't care less about the individual.

For example, Galperin states, “Facebook can and does choose real names over free speech and diversity of users –- that’s where the money is.” Facebook does choose real names. Personally, I don’t believe Facebook chooses it over free speech and diversity of users. In fact, I think Facebook does so for efficiency and to better protect their customers and advertisers. Yes, this is where the money is, but Facebook is a business. We need not forget that they are a private company, not a public service or government entity. Users choose to participate. If they want anonymity, they need to take advantage of the free market options available.

Boyd continues the hate when she says, ‘Real names are by no means universal on Facebook, but it’s the importance of real names is a myth that Facebook likes to shill out. And, for the most part, privileged white Americans use their real name on Facebook. So it “looks” right.’ I really do not want to focus on this statement because my main purpose for pointing it out is its stringently combative nature. Social networking sites are for exactly that, social networking. I understand the use of pseudonyms for protecting oneself but using pseudonyms has very little to do with skin color, particularly on sites where individuals post pictures of themselves, their friends, and their families.

Users should be able to protect themselves from others. Pseudonyms are a good method for doing so. However, Galperin and Boyd argue on behalf of pseudonyms for privacy. People should be able to choose who they expose themselves to, but expose who you truly are or you are wasting the purpose of a social networking site.