|
Recently while participating in the Science Guild in WoW, a heated debate ensued regarding transparency (identity disclosure) and anonymity as a digital person. This discussion has been occurring for some time now between those wishing to remain anonymous and continue as a digital person, and those that not only need, but require physical world identities. What is a digital person? For those unfamiliar with this term, they are synthetic identities created by people using the internet for virtual world habitation and representation, MMORPGs, and/or social networking. Many create a presence for themselves that replicate a human being’s presence in the physical world—with the exception of providing a legal identity. Some have extensive social networks, built brands around themselves, and offer services both to virtual and physical world businesses or organizations. In this context, a digital person is, by their own admission, a “person” that should be recognized based on their merit and not required to divulge a physical world identity. I speculate that it is possible they may be recognized as intellectual property. But by whom? From my point of view, businesses and organizations have every right to require identification. They need to know who they’re contracting or associating with, whether that person or legal entity is licensed to conduct business, what their reputation is, and have some assurance in regard to liability. Organizations also need to protect their employees, customers, shareholders, students, audiences, reputations, brands, products, and services--and they have every right to do so. In May 2008, the IRS ruled Electric Sheep’s Second Life greeters were part-time employees. No one should be surprised by this. If you employ or contract someone and pay them, you should expect your government to step in to collect their taxes as well as to protect the employee or contractor. I think this is a wake-up call for “digital people”. If you haven’t done so already, those providing virtual goods and services and realizing a physical world income from them should seriously think about obtaining a business license and reporting the income. At worst, keep records and be prepared to do so. I know several “digital people” in Second Life that are making $60,000.00+ USD annually—I’m pretty sure the government is going to notice. It’s only a matter of time. Where does that leave the digital person? I’m acquainted with many extremely talented and intelligent digital personas that, to date, have refused to disclose their physical world identities. I’ve envisioned scenarios where this might be necessary. Perhaps the digital person is famous in the physical world and wants to retain their anonymity in order to socialize and experience people and events in the same way that the average person does. Perhaps they are performing research and need the anonymity to insure their research is untainted by contrived reactions based on identity. I’m sure there are other reasons I’ve not covered here. However, in these scenarios they aren’t conducting business with physical world businesses or organizations, and they aren’t selling virtual goods or services in virtual worlds. The expectation that a digital persona can conduct business or interact on a professional level with organizations without disclosing their identity is likely going to limit their opportunities if they expect any kind of monetary exchange or financial investment. With that, what do you think?
|
Could "Leroy Jenkins" ever get a deal with Microsoft to manage one of their websites? The answer is no! Large companies have legal questions that average MMOG "users" typically are not concerned with.
Until the point the "real world" is considered an extension of the virtual world, as opposed to the current arrangement, real business collaboration requires that feeling of dealing with a "real person".
Business deals are built on trust and not disclosing your real self suggests something to hide whether true or not. Perception is reality!
As much as some of us hate to crawl out from our virtual anonymity (me!) it is likely always to be a pre-requisite for business relationships.
I've heard similar arguments - usually with less sophistication and more emotional upset - quite a bit, often from people with significant business experience. This continues to surprise me.
Look at most atomic-world business transactions - I'd even say all of them that are not contracts for unique personal services. I've had a nightmare recently buying a new computer, so let's use that as an example of a routine business deal.
I bought a custom-built computer from Alienware. I'd read PC magazine reviews to get a sense of what specifications I wanted, independent of who would be providing them, Then, based on reviews, I chose Alienware.
What did I know and not know? Well, they're a corporation. Whatever their *corporate* reputation, I had no way of knowing who the individuals behind that corporate identity would be - whether the person who built my box would be competent, or disaffected, or hung over that morning. I didn't know whether they'd actually have the training, whether they'd share my political views, whether they were kind to their pets.
What I also didn't know, through my own failure to do complete research, was that Alienware had been bought by Dell, and its quality had suffered since the acquisition - as I learned from a WSJ story the week I had my first problems.
Most of our business is like that: we deal with fictional business entities, and often know nothing of the "real persons" behind them. We *do* know that we *can't* look to those people for liability: we're limited to the assets of the fictional person, not the "real" people behind it. We make judgements based on the reputation of the fictional person - the corporation. Certain kinds of information are available, and certain kinds aren't.
When I find myself challenged over my digital identity, I ask people to unpack what it is they need to know. And what they need to do business with me in a digital world is, I think without exception, information about my digital identity: reputation, work experience, extent of community ties, portfolio of projects.
Do they need to "pierce the corporate veil" (a bizarre but fitting phrase)? Would they learn anything critical to their business decision? Largely, no. While the identity of the atomic person behind me might be of prurient interest, it's of limited practical interest.
As I understand it, the corporation was created to provide a shield between personal and business reputation and liability. Digital identity is different, but I think the similarities outweigh those differences.
You raise good issues about licensing and taxation. Certainly if I were doing large deals, I'd expect to be asked for a taxpayer identification number, and be asked about bonding, insurance, and similar things.
But when you deal with Cisco, do you ask for *Cisco's,* or for John Chambers'? You want the information of the fictional person you're actually doing business with, not of the atomic person or persons behind it.
Much of the negative reaction I encounter to my holding firm to my digital identity is based on fear of the unfamiliar - and that is a real factor, particularly for people looking to do business in spaces they don't understand.
I'd certainly recommend that people looking to develop business among people (or corporations) unfamiliar with the space *not* hold to digital identities, as a matter of customer relations. But that's a means of addressing *fear of the unfamiliar,* not, I think, of legitimate business, as opposed to emotional, concerns.
1) Synonymous with a corporate identity
2) Vouched-for by a corporation (for example, people deal all the time, and by design, with customer service agents who identify themselves only by first name -- and first names are often assumed to protect identity or conceal national origin ... for example, I had a fun call today with a guy who identified himself as 'Mike' until challenged, at which point he admitted his name was 'Vinodh.')
3) Assumed as a trademark (e.g., 'Brangelina,' a trademark of Angelina and Brad Pitt, themselves trademarks of Annie Worshack and Stuart Brzinski, Inc.)
... and probably 20 or 30 other things.
That said, there's also wisdom in the rule: Don't scare the straights.