“As part of a test, certain Facebook members will be able to create as many as four additional profiles, and each one won’t need to include a person’s real name or identity. Users could have one for friends and another for co-workers, for example, each with its own feed. But they will only be able to comment or like another post with one profile.”
So you could have one for friends and comment and like with that, but you’d be a mute on the one you have for co-workers? So they would likely know they aren’t attached to your core profile by virtue of your lack of activity … ???
I think this is strange, confusing, and a surprising turn against Facebook’s previous moves towards transparency and authenticity on the platform.
I’ll admit that I myself have two profiles…but that’s because I started a new public one (and locked my old one down!) when I became a journalist, and thus a “public figure,” in 2015. But my public one soon became my “real” one, and I haven’t done anything on the old one in forever—it’s just too much to bother with! (I only keep it for old photos, and I’d gladly merge them if I could.)
I think this is awesome!!! I wear multiple hats and I’d love to communicate with the different types of people I’m friends with on FB with different profiles!!!
In our local community Facebook Groups, we already have an issue of membership requests from burner accounts or troll accounts meant to infiltrate after being booted. I’m curious to know how blocked or banned accounts will be managed.
It seems like a weird move from a platform that was so adamant about using real names instead of nicknames.
If it’s just a matter of having a custom profile/photo/bio for different groups of people, why wouldn’t they make something like “custom profile” a thing instead of this?
Overall, while I can see some value, I suspect it will be hijacked by those with ill intentions.
They should make lists more of a thing again. Or Circles, like G+. Better settings, not multiple profiles.
Hey @amy3 - I like the phrase “burner account” in this case. FB tests all sorts of odd things all the time. I’ve been a part of some of them, and I’m always surprised at what they are testing. When they asked me about anonymous accounts in groups I told them this was nuts except for sensitive groups (moms, parents, victims etc.). hahah - I never hold back when talking to official FB people.
I can see why this would be good for sm managers but not so much for regular people who use FB, but who knows - maybe it will just be the way we all end up using social accounts going forward.
I think this will be very useful for authors and performers who have a stage name/persona but don’t necessarily want everyone to know their “normal” identity.
I DO think this would be handy for sm managers. Especially since FB shows the members of a Group who the Admins are (their personal account). It would be MUCH better to have a personal account for that Group so you wouldn’t get tons of private messages from the members into your personal messages. This is a particular problem I have with one very large group I manage.
Right - great point! I’ve often thought of publishing books using an author name instead.
I think this is a great way to spilt friends and clients as I have a number of clients that send me friend requests and this would be a way not to offend them by not accepting their friend request
I love lists and still use them all the time. I wish they were more accessible.
Not that long ago, I want to say about two months or so, Facebook had (for me anyway) the option to have separate News Feeds for Friends, Pages, Groups, etc. I actually really liked that, but I only had it for a week or so. I can’t recall if they had that at one point in the past as well. I want to say they did. I don’t know, but I liked that option.
Hey @deb i think I have Shaun at 3rd Pixel as my business profile