Intro

Like it or not, we're all pretty complex people. We tend to keep separate work, home/family, and social lives. Some people have a few more of these personas than others (some less), but for the most part, we all have a few of these different sides to ourselves. I call these different personas 'facets', and more specifically they are facets of a Meta-Identity -- the true author and root of diverse facets.

The core concept behind Meta-Identities is fairly simple:

In the real world, we tend to act differently across these facets- we even have different personalities and personas for each of them. We're more professional at work, dressing up and using proper grammar. With our casual friends we're laid back, dressing down and having a few drinks. And when it comes to family and home, we're very protective and guarded of them. Think of your own daily routines, and how where you are and who you are with affects the way you dress, act or speak. Now think of the different mannerisms and vocabulary you use; and the topics you talk about.

While there's often much overlap in these situations, if you can step back for a moment you'll notice that we do try to keep these aspects separate from one another -- whether we're conscious of these attempts or not. If you take a moment to look at your daily routines again - and pay attention to how you interacted yesterday at work, with friends etc afterwards, and calling your parents or seeing your partner later that evening - you'll likely notice that you're not carrying yourself the same way in each situation. Some people are privy to certain things, others are not.

It's really hard to draw borders around these facets: Where does one begin and another end? What about overlap? This isn't an exact science studied in black and white; this is almost an art with many shades of grey - and that is the essential point to this discussion.

These facets are all parts of us -- and that is what people often forget. These facets are all parts, and just "parts" - they are not a representation of the whole. We each have multiples of personas that act differently, like different things, and travel in different circles, and are different. Together they all form the "real" version of us - but they're the specific facets that we share.

The unfortunate trend of online identity systems has been to treat the diverse facets of a person - whether they correspond to your home, work, family or other - as a single unified identity of their digital self. This trend prompts the rhetorical question: If we act differently offline, sharing different parts of our personalities, our selves and our content, shouldn't we be able to do the same online?

The correct answer to that question is a resounding "Hell yes!"

If you answered differently, let me ask another question: Does your mother or wife know every little detail of what you've been up to the past week? Do you want her to?

Black & White

The industry is consistently conceiving and marketing "Black & White" solutions for consumers that live in a world of grey. We need to ask "Why?"

Over the past two years I've spoken with hundreds of startup founders and network operators. Everyone has their own unique rationale for choosing their strategy, but they have all generally fallen into two categories:

• The larger networks want to be as ubiquitous as possible to keep brand recognition up ( so people visit their site, and they can sell ads );
• The smaller networks need to be as ubiquitous as possible, to try and signup users so they can get acquired/funded.

The keyword here is ubiquity. It is just a simple fact- networks want ubiquity, they need a constant connection to the user for brand reinforcement.

I've also spoken with dozes of developers in the realms of applications and protocols that serve Identity, they have a completely different set of interests. The bulk of online identity enthusiasts are net-enthusiasts - they believe in "My Digital Self", a singular being/representation. These enthusiasts want blogs where they outwardly live their lives ; identity systems that tie everything online to their contact methods of choice; and the photos of them, their office, their friends and family all neatly tagged and put online for public display. To many of these people, Identity is much less a concept of roles and rules, than it is a public branding: "My OnlineID is Brand Me!".

The commercial identity aggregation systems have an even different approach to online identities.

1. what is the fastest/cheapest way to get a system online
2. what is the easiest/best way to foster adoption.

In both of these cases simplicity rules: corporations care about the bottom line, and that often mandates that the only solution is one that is cheapest and fastest to market. These interests have been unable to come out with a proper complex solution, because they can't think in terms of grey. They are limited to simple black & white offerings, and maybe... possibly... (though most likely never) there could be an upgrade to a more appropriate solution.

Shades of Grey

When thinking about internet activity, people generally think about their life online - not their lives online. Notice the singular thought... There is a conscious decision of thinking about how we present ourselves online as a unified facet - but unconsciously we all tailor our personalities and relations to match the networks. If you look at a given set of networks - you'll note that they each have a given personality: Facebook is preppy, Friendster is collegiate, and a bit proper; Linked in is professional; MySpace is exceedingly casual; Bebo can be downright dirty. While these traits are influenced by their core demographics, people on the margins or outside of these groups will tailor their profiles and interactions to mesh with the population at-large. This is simple and basic human psychology / behavior. Remember the last dinner party or drunken gathering you were at - despite people being being of different backgrounds and personalities, they probably tended to interact similarly and talk about the same subjects. If you look at a friend's MySpace account, you'll probably see them making jokes about getting too drunk and sick in Vegas ; if you look at their Facebook account they might have just joined a new Church group. Sure, these examples are silly - but they're legitimate, this is how people really act.

With this duality of personas in mind, look at your own online connections across networks. Your LinkedIn contacts are likely very different from your MySpace or Friendster. Some may be more valuable to you and have a higher barrier to 'friendship' status than others; you might only allow certain types/contexts of friends on one network than another. It is not uncommon for me to see someone with 400+ MySpace friends to have only 50 on Facebook or Friendster. Why? Look at the kinds of interactions and information you share on these networks: you probably want contacts on LinkedIn to have your email address - but you probably don't want your 200+ Bebo friend to. Now look at the content that you're posting on these networks - the information that you're sharing - it's probably very different.

Lets review how complicated this can get:

• We're sharing different facets of our lives with our friends, our family and our colleagues.
• We're tailoring these facets to the personalities of certain networks.
• We're experiencing overlap between the facets.

Online personalities clearly aren't black and white - they're grey. Pause for a moment and look at your different online accounts - or even look at a friends - try to separate your full knowledge of that person from the single dimension that you're seeing through that account. It can be really amazing - a cold business profile can belong to the same owner of a warm, compassionate dating profile and a drunken 'party in vegas' picture.

The Ubiquity of Identity

I use ubiquity a lot. Personally, I think its too much as I hate the word - but when we talk about identity online there are few other words that frame the proper dialogue. The concept of identity is increasingly omnipresent in everything that we do. When I started doing research in this realm there wasn't much identity around: an email address, chatting handle ( im/irc ), one or two social networks and then random forums. Today people have multiple emails that bounce around from one site to another: someone doesn't like hotmail so they move to Gmail then tie the two accounts together; Gmail doesn't work with their iPhone right so they switch to yahoo; then you switch jobs and you have a new address. A new social network springs up every day ; we start to have social networking involved applications: social calendars like Upcoming and Renkoo ; social music like Yahoo, iLike, Last.fm; and the most basic retailers are now going social: Amazon, eBay. Even Martha Stewart is launching her own social network. Whether we like it , know it , or neither... we keep accumulating identity facets.

I was recently on a call with a VC firm, and their due-diligence group were a couple of recent business school graduates who really embraced Facebook as the be-all/end-all of online interaction. These guys were so single-tracked on Facebook that when I said "FindMeOn is designed for people who have multiple online accounts" they quickly countered "Well, I only have a Facebook account. My friends only use Faceboook. Blah blah, Facebook. Blah" How do you counter that? What do you say? I could have talked about the face that despite they have a great product, market history shows constant migration; or the explosion in the niche markets ; or any one of hundred other valid responses to market positioning - but they're all irrelevant.

What is relevant, is the fact that even the core Facebook demographic - who insists and maintains that they have a single online identity - has a multitude of identities that they don't even realize exist. One of these particular 'Facebook Only' users had a work, graduate school, undergrad and personal email account - all of which were checked regularly or funneled into some other address. He obviously had his Facebook account - but he also: listed himself on LinkedIn, created a profile on Last.fm which he used with regularly ( or at least scrobbled to ), purchased a product on Amazon.com (which automatically creates profile pages, offers wishlists, and does rudimentary friends & favorites ), and has used eBay ( which uses reputation to some degree ). While talking to him, we stopped counting at the twelfth online identity that corresponded with 3 different facets of his personal life.

Nichefication

People want to feel like they're a part of something - they seek out others of similar interests. That's why we currently and will constantly see growth in the niche market: demographically targeted 'networks' that focus on a particular gender, ethnicity, interest, or social status. We see this trend from small online forums dedicated to a specific band, to social networks for MMORPGs, and content networks for 'latin mothers in the southeast who are expecting their second child'. This is the clean version of "Rule 34" - if you can think-up a demographic, there's a social network for it. People want to identify themselves with a smaller group. and be part of a tight-knit community. The larger networks know this- that's why you see them adding group features, and continually expand those services.

I was recently at a recent industry networking event, and an analyst from an investment firm approached the operator of a niche site with a really line of questioning that was unfortunately as commonplace as it was ill-conceived:

• So let me get this straight, your site caters to _____ ?
• Yep. Hence our name.
• And there's a market for that?
• Yeah. Its actually pretty big - we have 2MM active users.
• Really? That's crazy! Aren't you scared about Facebook? They're so great. I love them.
• Um, no. We serve a niche market - and they're really loyal and enthusiastic.
• Really? Do you do anything different than Facebook?
• Of course, we offer premier content and community catered to this demographic. We keep them engaged and help them grow.
• But its just content and forums? Facebook has that.
• Right, but it a niche market. People like being a part of a movement - especially one tailored to them.
• Do you think you can grow? Facebook doubled last year.
• We did too, and we're profitable.
• Aren't you scared of losing users to Facebook?
• No way. We have a lot of overlap - there's a community of our users on Facebook called "____ users". There's a community on our site called Facebook users. We're both growing. Happily.

I just had to jump in...

• Let me just ask a random question - how many people do you think are in this room?
• About 250?
• Probably. I think they all probably work at a NYC startup too, right?
• Yeah.
• Well, if the internet were over because of Facebook - wouldn't all these people not be having jobs, or even be dressed professionally right now? Shouldn't they all just 'give up' in your model? I mean hell, why do anything online - there's Facebook and Google. The Internet has reached its Apex! We're the best we can ever be!
• Thats not what I mean.
• No, that exactly what you mean - you just questioned the very concept of a culture industry even bothering to progress and advance itself - simply because there is a market leader.

I love being tertiary to conversations like this, I find them amazing. While the analyst was not pleased, I was quickly approached by a handful of VCs and Marketing Execs who absolutely loved my sentiment and candor. Why? Because its true. People need to get over the fact that there are market leaders already - of course there are , but they shift! There is innovation and technology out there - and there is an exponentially growing demand for niche markets.

In terms of market leaders like Facebook - they make some amazing products... for now. Who knows what they will be like two years ago? The Facebook argument is the same thing that I heard about AOL, Friendster, MySpace, and Yahoo. They've all been great at hitting certain demographics , but times and trends shift - and these companies often adapt poorly or not at all. Yahoo wanted to be everything to everyone, and just became bland and forgetful - losing their identity and market edge. Facebook has a hold on the Collegiate and Corporate markets - if they stick to that, they'll stay profitable forever; if they go the Yahoo/AOL route, they're going to be forgetful.

No matter who the market leader is, and how much they expand, there will always be a growing need for niche services: The market constantly demands them. Barring some giant cultural leap that forever changes the way humanity thinks and responds on the most basic of levels, end users will always want to identify with and belong to something small and intimate. This is what drives us as a people.

Exploitation

Exploitation is a dirty word. It is exceedingly negative - and very important to use. I was recently at a Tech Meetup, used the word in conversation, and the eyes of the person I was talking to doubled in size as they went bloodshot. "Exploitation!" he exclaimed. "Why would you bring that up? Its so dead-on, but why would you bring it up? Doesn't that hurt your concept? Are you trying to exploit people?"

My answer was simple- "No. It helps my concept. It hurts the status-quo. In order to create something secure, you really need to find out the weaknesses and the incentives behind exploitation. When you're dealing with identity, security and privacy should be a necessity."

My personality compels me to constantly think - preparing and crafting scenarios and contingency plans. When I think about online identities I immediately question:

1. why would someone exploit it?
2. how are they likely to do it?
3. what can we do to prevent that?

An example I love to use is the prevention of what I call "harmless exploitation". If you look at some of your basic online identities, and see how you're acting and presenting yourself on them, there's a really good chance that you're already trying to protect yourself. My audience right now is pretty much self-selecting, so chances are that you have more than a few online IDs - including a LinkedIn account which mostly services your professional life. If I look at that account right now, I'm probably going to see a collection of your business contacts and your work website - maybe a 'personal' blog that is industry oriented. I'm probably not going to see a link to your Facebook profile , your Family blog/photo album, or your Friendster/MySpace.

Most people I know are quick to rush and say "Oh no... I'm the same on all my networks.". But when I question them "So you're not hiding your MySpace profile from LinkedIn, hoping clients/investors won't see those pix of you drunk at that party or who's in your Top5 ?" everyone replies "oh... yeah... i... uh... do that." Similarly, people try to hide their business contacts from casual friends who might over-utilize them, and they almost always insulate their family life from everything else. I call this style of exploitation "harmless" because no real harm is done by these sorts of abuse. You might have an uncomfortable moment - or four - but otherwise things are pretty fine.

Harmless Exploitation is a best-case scenario of identity abuse - but exploitation can be compromising. It's sadly not uncommon for people to suffer from uncomfortable work relations because they have an opposing political affiliation listed on a social network profile. I've definitely experienced moments like that personally. We've all seen the horror-stories of people losing their jobs because of a random Facebook picture, or a personal blog that was somehow linked to their employment, and there are stories of families where someone's sexuality was outed on a myspace profile. When online facets become conflated, they can have significant offline effects.

At the extreme realm of possibility, identity exploitation can be tragic - giving identity thieves, stalkers and sexual predators the information they obsess over. There was a great commercial recently by the cable industry in a campaign called PointSmartClickSafe - it was a kid who was reading out loud all of the 'gossip' his family had been writing or chatting online - urging people to think about what they post and where. Imagine, for a moment, what happens if your online identities are all conflated: an identity thief can grab your mother's maiden name or father's middle name off of your family blog or a Flickr photo comment; they can grab your work address by looking up your employer on LinkedIn; they can find your hometown from a MySpace profile link.

Notice what information fields I mentioned- they're the same as the closely guarded information that credit and billing industries use for verification purposes- and they're all information that people typically share online, often times connected! Now imagine online predators - stalkers and sexual offenders - they can target someone on Bebo to find their Hometown and School; looking at their LiveJournal they can learn some daily patterns; looking at some photos on Flickr or a family blog then can make out street names and house numbers in the background. Imagine years from now: Could someone's health insurance rates go up because they were identified as a member of a Quit Smoking forum? Could their car insurance be rejected because they are linked to a forum identity that posts about drunk driving experiences?

The amount and quality of information that we're sharing - and often linking - is ASTOUNDING. Social Networking and Online Profiles may be the second best thing to ever happen to criminals; the current systems that aggregate this information are easily the best.

I don't mention this to create an FUD campaign - but perhaps I should. People aren't approaching information sharing with the fear or uncertainty they should, and few people express doubt over the privacy of the data they share.

Conclusion

Understanding Online Identity has less to do with computers and programming than it does with psychology and anthropology. Whether these decisions are conscious or not, online and offline behaviours are remarkably similar as people tailor their personas to match an intended audience or group. People express a clear affinity to identify with smaller groups - be they a niche or a clique - and most exhibit at least a subconscious understanding and worry of how their personal information is shared online.

---

This Document was authored in reStructuredText