Danah Boyd's persistently looping problem is that she's never designed, built, implemented, maintained, marketed, sold, held accountable for nor financed anything, never mind experienced the personal sacrifices and risk associated with the engagement of entrepreneurial activities yet she seems to always be first in line to demand change from the work of others while invoking her rights to benefit from the fruit of their labor.
She's today's critic and tomorrow's cheerleader wrapped in the guise of unaccountable academia, whose success rises and falls with the whims of those who manipulate her data for their own purposes, to include herself.
Truth be told, social networks have existed since the beginning of time, mostly in the meatspace, but also many in print or via other methods of communication. Some of those networks required their membership to provide bona fides while others went to the other extreme and forbade any form of real identification. A person could then choose which network to associated with, or not, depending on their personal preferences and the same could be argued for the network facilitators.
There will always be a contrarian reaction to any established rules, so while some social networks will only allow you to participate using your true credentials, others will be present to allow just the opposite, just like Hacker News.
This argument is used around here to explain away anyone that doesn't agree with your favorite startups's angle...
Its so much more complicated than that.
The clearcut assumption that those who express this particular ideal are immature and inexperienced is ridiculous.
It's not very complicated. A service debuts and within a matter of weeks acquires a user base exceeding 20 million people. Not without complication or frustration on behalf of those who still prefer the use of bardic names, but a success nonetheless. Yet one person still reserves their right to stand over the shoulder of the actual developers and issue directives that they feel would complement their experience, regardless of what 20+ million people think. And when her directives are ignored, she claims abuse.
Having to use your own name while negotiating the tricky waters of social relationships is not abuse, it's the first-world problem of a petulant, spoiled child.
She's today's critic and tomorrow's cheerleader wrapped in the guise of unaccountable academia, whose success rises and falls with the whims of those who manipulate her data for their own purposes, to include herself.
Truth be told, social networks have existed since the beginning of time, mostly in the meatspace, but also many in print or via other methods of communication. Some of those networks required their membership to provide bona fides while others went to the other extreme and forbade any form of real identification. A person could then choose which network to associated with, or not, depending on their personal preferences and the same could be argued for the network facilitators.
There will always be a contrarian reaction to any established rules, so while some social networks will only allow you to participate using your true credentials, others will be present to allow just the opposite, just like Hacker News.