[jfarmer]

This seems backwards. "Authenticity" and "identity" aren't monolithic. To steal from Walt Whitman, we all contain multitudes.

What I express on IG is no more or less authentic than what I express here or on Quora or at a quiet meal with friends. They all express a sometimes-idealized aspect of myself. The goal is not a quest for "real identity." The idea itself is incoherent.

[joshuanguyen]

this is true if you consider cases where sometimes your online interactions seem more real or authentic than anything you do offline and identity comprise both. I prob should bifurcate my idea that "real" here means where you spend the majority of your life, for me i'd rather be offline, and it feels like we're caught trying to one up each other talking about our offline lives on these social networks that may not be the most accurate representation of what really goes on. I guess I'm interested in the "multitudes" too, just see a very edited version on FB, Instagram, etc (they serve their purposes)

[jfarmer]

Just some thoughts! Feel free to ignore. None of this is personal, just things I've spent time thinking about in the context of building social software. I could be entirely wrong or confused and unjustified in my opinions.

We edit ourselves "offline," too. The "self" we present to our co-workers is different than the "self" we present to our family, friends, or lovers. Do you think people "edit" themselves more or less on Facebook or Instagram than they do when they're, say, at a job interview or on a first date?

And, sure, how we present ourselves online may not be the "most accurate representation of what really goes on," but is this more or less editing than you hiding your professional struggles from your closest friends because they act and talk as if you're more successful than you really are? Consider, for example, a husband and father who is close to losing his job. "Hey Sam, how's work going?" "Hey honey, how was work today?" "Hey daddy, do you love your job? Will you be the boss one day? I think you'd make a great boss."

And this isn't even to talk about the stories we tell ourselves about our own lives. We delude ourselves in a million ways, big and small, every day. This is normal and necessary.

I don't think it's about "more" or "less" editing, as if we decide what percentage of ourselves to reveal to other people or as if there's some indivisible, Platonic "identity" that I possess. It's more like an actor putting on a show. It depends on the actor, the play, the stage, and the audience. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine in X-Men is no more or less authentic than Hugh Jackman as Curly in Oklahoma!. Maybe the part of him in Wolverine isn't brought out anywhere else in his life, in which case there's a way in which Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is both more and less authentic than Hugh Jackman as his everyday self (whatever that means).

I don't think it's that "we're caught trying to one up each other talking about our offline lives on these social networks." We do that offline plenty. What online social networks do provide is a discrete and, until now, unparalleled measure of control over how I express myself. I can invent a whole new self on Instagram if I want and I can delete it when I'm done with it. I can't do that with my friends, at least not without risking my friendship or becoming known as "that guy who reinvents himself all the time." This opens up whole new fields of expression and play.

For example, in your product your photos expire. Yes, this lowers the "cost to my identity." One consequence of this might be that folks reveal more of their "authentic self," whatever that means. Another consequence might be that they ham it up in ways they'd consider inappropriate in a more permanent or serious context. Another consequence might be that people turn it into a game where, because you know every photo has an expiration date, you try to see how much attention you can get in that timeframe. This will naturally lead to crazier, more extreme, and more controversial forms of expression.

This isn't a product critique, BTW. I think what you're doing is interesting, but I think you're fooling yourself if you believe that somehow folks will be more "authentic" on your service, in part because I think the idea of the "authentic self" is a bit of a fiction. If folks find that your service lets them express part of themselves that they couldn't before or were afraid to before, that's great! If you get a critical density of people doing that you have a successful social network! But I think "authenticity" isn't the axis along which those expressions will fall.

I actually think if you over-focus on "authenticity" you run the risk of making bad product decisions. What happens if folks start using your service to do things you consider inauthentic? Do you ban them? Do you try to curtail the behavior through product design and other feedback mechanisms? If you do, you run the risk of squashing the kinds of activity that can lead to a robust network. Those unexpected expressions are exactly what a community or tribe building a sense of identity look like, even if you disagree with that conception of identity or consider it inauthentic.

[joshuanguyen]

Yeah, I think the "authentic" and "real" stuff is one direction that we gravitated towards after seeing early usage; we purposefully made it really simple with a few constraints to see how people would use it. We thought it was going to be a side project, but so far the lessons have been unexpected and fun. I don't know where the product exactly goes, and we're not going to try to push it into any preconceived box, but there is something interesting going on about how people see themselves and what they're willing to share. For me, authenticity = diversity. And weirdly, there's a lot of diversity to be found in just our faces! Appreciate the thoughts on this - I like thinking about this stuff.