Social Network Anonymity Hybrid

I've been reading a fair bit about the pros and cons of requiring users to employ their real names on social networking services. I won't bother to recap these comparisons here in any detail, but will instead outline my preferred compromise, which is that if a pseudonym is employed, the profile must make this clear. This allows those who aren't comfortable with unknown persons to filter based on the fact and avoids impersonation issues, while still allowing the benefits of anonymity to those who require it. Users who violate this policy could face appropriate disciplinary action in an easy to keep consistent manner. The issues surrounding the verification of one's true identity are no different than a system that mandates real names. It may be useful to distinguish between accounts that have been declared anonymous and those that are simply unverified as yet, perhaps with a reasonable deadline and possibly even levels of confirmation. Many variations are possible, but the fundamental idea is this: give users the information and features required in an easy to use, consistent manner so that they can decide for themselves how they feel about anonymity.

Update: a possible option of particular note is one where the user is required to verify their identity, but then are free to use any public name they desire. This eliminates the issues with multiple accounts and impersonation, but still allows anonymity.

The Future of News

This is a rewritten version of a post on my private blog from 12/12/2008.

Newspapers continue to see their fortunes dwindle as circulation shrinks and classifieds (previously 50% of their income) flee to free online venues. Papers now seem to realize that the Internet is their future, but no one has yet figured out how to reconcile the lower profit margins with their operating costs. While it is becoming obvious that a news agency's primary role is not distributing news, I would argue that additionally it isn't generating news either. The need to increase efficiency will lead to many fewer reporters and editorials, except for extremely important events and the idea of dedicated correspondents will have to largely disappear. This isn't to say that there will not be professional, full time journalists, but the number that work solely for one news agency will seriously decline.  What really matters ultimately is the assurance of a news agency that their information will be accurate and their opinion pieces insightful. Thus, editors and reputations will be as important as ever, and should give established agencies an initial edge over the wave of newcomers. In theory, what a news service could finally become is essentially a fact checker, sorting unsubstantiated rumor from credible news and assuring the quality of editorials of anyone, not just those directly employed by them. The ability of users to designate trusted agencies to vet stories for them could serve as a critical method, along with recommendation systems, of making sense of the increasing torrent of information.

Bandwidth Anti Net Neutraility Argument is Flawed

Network providers who oppose net neutrality claim that without the ability to prioritize traffic based on content their networks will be overwhelmed. Of course there are serious conflicts of interest that go along with that capability such as banning Skype traffic so as to encourage sales of the provides VOIP service. If the problem is a crowded network, it makes more sense to charge users based on the amount of bandwidth the use. Since many providers are already exeperimenting with such schemes, their argument against net neutrality appears disingenuous.