I don't know why someone would want to have the same identity in the workplace as on internet forums, for example.

Social media appears to have given many people the idea that they ought to cultivate their public identity from an early age as preparation for internet fame / personal branding.

I different interesting question: why would we want to inhabit this universal room in the first place? The post mentions the idea of being "bigger than yourself" but to me the context collapse achieves the opposite - a sort of carboard caricature of oneself.

A large part of that was that early adopters tended to be more educated, played nicely, and were not involved in attention-seeking, sychophancy, and often, escapism.

Another factor is the bright colors, moving videos and other eye candy, and psychological hacks like the emojis for "liking" and gaining "followers" which produce addictive feedback loops.

Of course, this interview touches on valid points, but is not the whole picture. "Bad news travels fast" and gets more clicks. That helps explain the rot of the news media.

Maybe I am oversimplifying too, however. Factors like sophisticated persuasion campaigns by various organizations, for example, cannot be discarded. Likewise with the advertisers.

I want to be able to discuss taboo ideas in private, without getting globally cancelled for something I that might be discussed out of my mind. No thanks to the uni-context.

context-bound > uni-context, for at least the Germanic-speaking world.

That article proposes that, soon, it will be possible to connect any online identity to its owner's other identities by analyzing stylistic details in their writing. So even niche online communities will have these problems.

It does sound very interesting and right up my alley.

I also don't seem to be able to use internet search anymore (probably a user error) so if anyone has a link to a document, soundfile or video of Agnes Callard explaining the concept without the interuptions from a interviewer that is more interested in contributing than to let her explain the concept I would very much appreciate it.

The other relevant word is "objectivity". There so many systems in our society whose context we surround ourselves with, it starts to feel like every subject is objective. The reality is that every subject is subjective.

I think one of the big drivers for this dynamic is that our social systems are facilitated with software, and we always make software as a uni-context. An application is a fixed context.

If we can figure out how to introduce subjectivity into software, that would be extremely useful for both computing and society.

Atomization has clear motivations: increasing the individual consumer base (no, you shouldn't share your car or lawnmower with your block, you need your own), suppressing democracy, and generally making a population more predictable and easy to manage.

Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla as CTO because of a small donation in favour of Prop 8. Fine?

I think most people here would say yes. In fact people did say that.

I think many people would say they don’t want to have a plumber who opposes (say) trans rights. Or read an author who is anti-gay. Pick some view heretical to your world-view and see if you can stand to encounter people who hold it.

If you require all purity you probably prefer the uni-context.

It's the same fundamental network problem: the infrastructure that allows unprecedented levels of commerce and ideas and travel will also allow disinformation, plagues, and homogeneity. The double-edged sword of graph density.

Isn't that what G Wave/ G+ trying to solve?

I think a better option would be: don't tie your IRL identity for online communications.

This read as AI, which is odd.

Social networks are globalized. Being captain of your high school football team used to be special, but now it's nothing, when people are comparing themselves against Nobel-prize winning teenagers.

Almost all professional jobs are globalized. Software companies sell globally; financial companies sell globally; drug companies sell globally. That means the most talented professional can charge whatever they want because they can generate profits from a massive market.

But non-college-educated workers are left out. They can only get local jobs, which (a) don't pay as well, and (b) get competition from immigrants. This is exactly how Trump got in the White House and how so many right-wing parties rose across Europe. It's why Brexit happened.

Globalization is even the cause of enshittification. When your market is local, the opinion of your customers is important, and a good reputation allows you to expand to new regions. But when your market is global, you can only grow by extracting more value from existing customers.