Digital Memory and Identity

Jen recently shared this article from the New York Times with me:

The Web Means the End of Forgetting, by Jeffrey Rosen

I'll be up front with you: this article really raised my ire. So if you will indulge me, good reader, let me share with you some of my thoughts (previously and briefly expressed here) about this article, and online social interaction in general. I have a question for you, reader, which I hope you answer in the comments: are people totally oblivious to what they and others post about them online? Or, do they not care? This question came up frequently while I was reading the article. I think these two questions form the core of my objections raised in the course of reading this article. I want to share with you three quotes from the article that really stood out to me, and my reactions to the quotes.

As social-networking sites expanded, it was no longer quite so easy to have segmented identities: now that so many people use a single platform to post constant status updates and photos about their private and public activities, the idea of a home self, a work self, a family self and a high-school-friends self has become increasingly untenable. In fact, the attempt to maintain different selves often arouses suspicion. Moreover, far from giving us a new sense of control over the face we present to the world, the Internet is shackling us to everything that we have ever said, or that anyone has said about us, making the possibility of digital self-reinvention seem like an ideal from a distant era.

My personal reaction to this quote was to ask myself: "Why are segmented identities such a good thing?" To me, they seem dishonest and deceptive, but I suppose that to some extent all people engage in this kind of segmentation. However, I am torn - while I think having a single identity or personality is far more honest and transparent for those who you interact with, my professional ethics tell me that it is not up to me whether or not a person should have these identities, but it it my duty to protect their privacy. As a professional librarian, I am charged with defending the privacy of people everywhere - be they patrons in my library or not. This is challenging to me as well, though - am I charged with defending the privacy of people who totally disregard their rights online by sharing every intimate detail and image of themselves online? Should I hew to a more abstract concept? This is a challenge I would love to have your opinion and input about, reader.

As to the concept of segmented identities, I find myself making an effort to be the same person and identity to everyone I meet, polite and appropriate for all situations. I would like to think that people that know me professionally would not be shocked at my private side and see the two as being symbiotic and non-mutually exclusive.

In practice, however, self-governing communities like Wikipedia — or algorithmically self-correcting systems like Google — often leave people feeling misrepresented and burned. Those who think that their online reputations have been unfairly tarnished by an isolated incident or two now have a practical option: consulting a firm like ReputationDefender, which promises to clean up your online image. ReputationDefender was founded by Michael Fertik, a Harvard Law School graduate who was troubled by the idea of young people being forever tainted online by their youthful indiscretions. “I was seeing articles about the ‘Lord of the Flies’ behavior that all of us engage in at that age,” he told me, “and it felt un-American that when the conduct was online, it could have permanent effects on the speaker and the victim. The right to new beginnings and the right to self-definition have always been among the most beautiful American ideals.”

Once again, I feel strongly that the deficits of the online community, and dangers of personal information online can be solved rather simply by curating your online identity. We all engage in activities that are best shared between trusted friends, and it is our duty as personal curators to make sure that those experiences (and any record of them) stay as they were originally intended - private. Discretion is key, and there is a very selfish assumption at the heart of sharing all this information - that someone will be super-interested in sharing it, and will want your every single move and activity shared with them and your other online contacts. Take an external view and ask yourself "Would I feel comfortable sharing this with the entire world?" If what you are about to share is better shared with just a few people, use a medium that ensures your privacy - as one should operate under the assumption (I think) that everything online can potentially be seen by anyone on the internet.

“We’re hearing stories of employers increasingly asking candidates to open up Facebook pages in front of them during job interviews,” Fertik told me. “Our customers include parents whose kids have talked about them on the Internet — ‘Mom didn’t get the raise’; ‘Dad got fired’; ‘Mom and Dad are fighting a lot, and I’m worried they’ll get a divorce.’ ”

My final reaction - can employers legally do this? Can they ask people to open up their Facebook accounts in the process of a job interview? Seems illegal to me based on my knowledge of laws and rights. Is this a thing? If so, why aren't people getting punished for this sort of thing? I know employers frequently will do a cursory Google search on applicants, and perhaps on Facebook as well (If you are a potential employer looking for me, I am not a musician, nor am I a magician.)

All that said, I know I was proselytizing from my soapbox, but I want to hear your thoughts, readers!