[naravara]

You don’t need IRL identity, you just need persistent reputation. That reputation can be attached to a pseudonymous identity or an IRL one. But the design of most modern social media is to detach the “content” from the context of the author. The feeds you subscribe to are funnels that channel atomized bits of content to you. Some of it may be authored by them, but it’s the platform that intermediates your relationship to that content more than the creator. The creator is subordinated to it.

A different design logic, and the logic of the blogosphere that preceded it, much more tightly prioritized following a blogger or poster and interpreting everything you see in light of who was posting it. The trust is placed in the account you follow.

[berkes]

We've moved "identity" to a few large monopolists. Who lack all incentive to properly "enforce" it. And whose interest are perpendicular to people owning their identities (being able to take them elsewhere).

"Persistent" reputation won't change that. Because on the internet nothing is persistent, without a central party enforcing it to be so. And as said above, the ones in charge of it now, don't want to enforce it really. You don't own your domain, you don't own your IP, you don't own your feeds, "content" etc. The infrastructure that routes people to your correct "reputation", isn't yours, it's controlled and owned by Big Tech, governments, and some smaller companies. Your feed can be taken offline or away from you in a whim. Access to your blog isn't yours. Not even if you host it on a rasberry-pi in your cupboard.

Aside from maybe some blockchain shenanigans, that is. Bitcoin and maybe Ethereum are the only decentralized "pseudonymous" identity providers that could step into this, but both are ridiculously costly and complex. And wholly unsuited to route content. Systems designed for this, like Tor, aren't really up to the task either. Just look at how insanely hard it is for "Content" that governments oppose, to remain online (e.g. on the tor network). Possible, but so complex, so fragile, that it's not a practical system to use en masse. Yet it's the only working system that comes closest to really owning content in the broad sense.

So it makes perfect sense to turn to the systems that have done this "persistent reputation", aka "identity" for centuries now: Governments. Compared to Big Tech, they're more decentralized - there are far more governments worldwide "doing identities" than there are FAANG corporations. Hell, even within the US or within my country alone, there are more. Compared with all other systems, we can control them, push them into a direction we want them to go - democracy. Far from perfect. Bad even. But the least worst way to have some "persistent identity" we can get. Unfortunately.

[naravara]

You’re trying to engineer a social interaction. Stop that!

People remembering your handle is persistent, and people remembering if they had good or annoying interactions with you is persistent reputation that exists in the minds and interactions between different people. These are things people naturally do. If people don’t recognize your name and see it come in a trusted spot they just don’t trust you.

How tech breaks this is deprioritizes the people in the interactions. Instead of sending messages you use a “like” button to be intelligible to the platform. You don’t see the people putting stuff on your feed, it gets fed to a timeline that cuts it off from all context and atomizes it for your consumption. It’s the UI/UX that drives this. Even compare Reddit and HN with old forums. On forums like 25% of every post is just static bits of self-expression. There’s a PFP, the username is bigger, there’s often a big signature block. All of this makes the peoples’ posts feel like a person talking to you rather than text blocks that happen to have a tiny username and timestamp on it.

[berkes]

My point is that you don't own your handle. Therefore you aren't your handle.

Edit: to clarify: You aren't your handle, because it can be taken away from you, can be injected, blocked, overridden, etc.

My technical rambling then went on about how or when we can make this "handle" decentralized so it cannot be taken away from you. Hard. As proven in practice. Almost impossible.

My name is maintained by a government. It is a "handle" that could be taken away too, but is governed in lots of rules, systems and regulations. My face (an extension of my DNA, I guess) is decentralized and owned by me: its the only handle that afaik no one can take from me.

So in social interactions, you're right: reputation, bound to "me", my face, my DNA is all that matters. But online we don't have this. The closest we can probably get is "my name", controlled by governments.

[KPGv2]

> My point is that you don't own your handle. Therefore you aren't your handle.

This is a good point. I wrote a self-deprecating post to Reddit one time that got flagged by AI or someone who isn't a native English speaker as a "threat of violence." This is almost word for word the exchange that triggered it:

Me: [some in-depth discussion of electrical wiring in a house]

Other person: Wow, thank you so much! I would hire you to fix my wiring!

Me: haha oh I'd probably find some other way to burn your house down

The final line was meant to be a humble way of dismissing the compliment by playing down my expertise. But someone with the power to ban accounts parsed this as "I am going to commit arson."

And so I lost the ability to DM any of my friends. My entire reputation was gone. This was a nearly 20yo Reddit account.

And I can't make a new account and tell people "this used to be me" because then Reddit bans your new account because it's against the rules to create a new account if you've been banned.

Yes, I've created other accounts since then. But I can't ever link them to my old one because Reddit will just ban the new ones. (I tried this, and that's exactly what happened.)

I can't even participate on the same subreddits because there's some algo that recognizes if two accounts have similar subscription habits and does some kind of analysis to guess at if it's a person evading a ban.

I was shocked at first (I was in the mid of organizing an event using Reddit in part for communications, and had to rely on an IRL friend who was helping rn it to speak for me), and then angry, and then just sad.

It's one reason I've begun using one moniker everywhere, and I own that domain name as well. It's the closest I can get to fully owning my handle.

[berkes]

I'm "berkes" almost everywhere. And my domain is my handle as well: berk.es.

So I do the same as you. But I am quite sure e.g. The Great Musk In All His Wisdom will one day either find me annoying and hand over the now discontinued x.com/berkes to someone who agrees better whith His views. Or decides his politics are better served by raising accounts from the deaths and making some AI voice act like me, that spew political messages.

I own "berkes" about everywhere. But nowhere do I really own it. Not even the domain name. The only handle I truly own is some bc1q....... address. One that has -by design- no reputation and one that's impossible to write in pen on the back of a beermat after a nice discussion in a bar.

[numpad0]

IMO that is the problem that botspams and focus on IRL identity aims to "solve". Money can't buy competency, therefore popularity, and that undermines economic influence one may have, which is problematic to some.

[metalliqaz]

I think you make a good point and it is well taken. You could be right.

But I still believe that people will care about connecting with an actual person in meatspace. I just can't picture any other result except for complete and total burnout with the fakeness of the web.