Nyms, Pseudonyms, or Anonyms? All of the Above.

Posted by Jim Adler, Chief Privacy Officer at Intelius

There’s been a lot of recent debate around the use of online names sparked by the Google+ real names policy. The stark absolutism of this debate baffles me, as if we had to choose between them. It’s a false choice. We should have them all. As we map human social customs online, nuance and context rule. Inflexible policies and binary choices are a cop-out. Life’s complicated and more interesting that way. As I recently tweeted in a privchat:

There are legit use-cases for pseudonyms so they shouldn’t be banned. But they are certainly unnatural for mainstream use. #privchat

This got me thinking about how many real names are typical for each person? I did a quick look across the Intelius public-records corpus of a few hundred million people and counted the number of real names per person. The results are what you might expect:

The vast majority of people, 83%, have one full-name [Just to be clear, Sarah Jessica Parker may also go by Sarah Jessica Broderick. Those would count as two real names.] A significant minority, 11%, have two names. I imagine that most of the people with two names are married women who are recently married or simultaneously maintain their maiden and married names (typical of professional women). It’s a little surprising that 6% have more than two names. I wonder how many people in this set have criminal records?

So far, the nymwars debate has largely been framed around the 17% that have more than one name. But there are strong pro and con arguments for nyms, pseudonyms, and anonyms. What, the totality of human social engagement can’t be pigeonholed into a single use-case? Hmm, Surprising.

Nyms

Whether offline or online, the vast majority of us build trusted relationships and reputation around our real name. Real names are easy and natural. I use my real name on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. One of Facebook’s best strategic moves was encouraging use of real names. Generally, real names encourage real interactions and weakens the barrier between offline and online experiences. However, requiring real names is an 83% solution that’s fueling a Google+ backlash from the other 17%.

Pseudonyms

There’s a host of reasons for pseudonyms, many of which have been cataloged during the recent nymwars. An example of a pseudonym is Twitter’s PogoWasRight, which is used persistently and has established respect within the privacy community. Pseudonyms are not new as Samuel Clemens proved more than 130 years ago.

The challenge with pseudonyms is that they are tough to manage. I know several professional women that simultaneously maintain two legal names. They are in a perpetual state of multiple account management—”which name did I use for this account again?” I founded a startup several years ago that tried to crack this problem. It’s a bear.

Anonyms

As for anonyms, they are distinct from pseudonyms. The intent with pseudonyms is to build a long-lived identity that’s separate from our real identity. In stark contrast are anonyms (e.g., fymiqcxw) which are throw-away identities that in nearly all cases (except political dissent) have nefarious intent. Online anonyms too often encourage what psychologists call deindividuation. Nothing empowers a psychopath more than an audience and a mask.

The key takeaway is—whether nym, pseudonym, or anonym—trust, accountability, empathy, and civility are built around knowing whom you’re dealing with. As we move through this continuum, we move away from “real” relationships. If that’s your intent, fine. The nymwars debate is larger than the real name policies of any social network. It is a further evolutionary move toward mapping our social norms online. Sure, it’s messy. Most human endeavors are.

More from Jim Adler, Chief Privacy Officer at Intelius