Online Identity- Social Network Suicide

When the act of deleting online user profiles is compared to suicide, we know the line between online identity and reality is becoming blurred. In the article “Facebook blocks online identity deletion sites,” new programs are discussed that promise to help social network users “commit social network suicide” by deleting online information. Instead of deleting entire profiles, it will “change passwords, pictures and delete[s] ‘friend’ connections.” Not only does it help the user commit viral suicide but it puts up a complimentary “memorial” page which includes the users final thoughts. One of these sites, Web 2.0 Suicide Machines, is in an ethical battle with Facebook. Does Facebook own the user’s information, or does the user?

The terms Web 2.0 uses to describe their service is particularly noteworthy. The term “suicide” usually has negative connotations, and is not taken lightly. It also does not usually apply to non-living things. However, because it is now being used to express the deletion of online identities, the word has less serious consequences. Society has somehow gotten to the point where we think that deleting our online identity is somehow related to deleting ourselves or a dimension of ourselves. It is becoming apparent in today’s society that we make light of the things we see online. We become very involved in these social networks and we can disconnect ourselves from reality and create new ones. Society emerges into the online world we all seem to so desperately cling to.

Facebook also argues the ethics of sites like Web 2.0, because they have established a sound statement that promises Facebook will not give away any passwords nor do they encourage sharing passwords. Web 2.0 rehashed, saying password secrecy is up to the user, which brings up the question of who owns the user’s online identity. Does it belong to the website that houses and stores it, or is it the property of the people who posted the data in the first place? While Facebook is claiming ownership of these online identities, Web 2.0 says the rights are with the people. This proves that these identities and their legal ties are questionable, because so many can claim its possession. In the future, who can claim ownership when all of these Facebook users have stopped using the network and forgotten about their profiles? The information is still out there for anyone to access. The question of who owns what on the Internet is a long battle that seems to just be getting messier. Not only does this apply to social networks, but file sharing as well.

Websites that offer these social network suicides must have been created from people wanting these services for their online identity. Did these users want their online identities deleted because they no longer want their lives at anyone’s disposal, or did they just want to move onto another social network with a fresh start and a new online identity? It is a bit of both. People are always looking for the newest and most popular way to express themselves, and to connect with other people. It is very easy to start fresh, which is why people want to delete their old information. However, as it becomes more prevalent that anyone can access anything placed on the web, people are beginning to protect their identity and keep it separate from their actual lives.

That brings the notion of online identity full circle. There are many instances of online identities becoming more distant from people’s real personalities, but it does not necessarily make them any less “real”. That is why websites such as Web 2.0 Suicide Machines have a noose on the homepage and offer and out from social networks. We all know it is not actual suicide, but it is getting close enough that we can make a pun of the word. It is like a viral version of a relocation program: it may not be a popular fad yet, but these sites do offer the opportunity to start fresh, and allow us to be anyone we could want.