I get judged by my appearance every single fucking day and it's tiresome even when it's to my benefit. One of the benefits I see to being online is that no one knows what I look like until I feel comfortable showing them. I was a big proponent of not adding avatars when it came up in a discussion thread and I remain that way.
we might be similarly judged by our choice of username. but what does a forum with no names look like? 4chan or writing on a bathroom wall. i agree with you, i think our options for personalization should be stopped at usernames and whatever the user chooses to say on their profile.
But my point does still stand: any image by which I present myself will allow others to form snap opinions of me for it. sardis accurately points out that no matter what, as long as we have some sort of "handle," be it name, avatar, or other, by which we identify and differentiate ourselves, there is an amount of prejudgment that will come with that name. However I do feel that an image lends itself to more judgement, and perhaps more snap judgment, than a word or series of words - usually. If there were someone on here with, for instance, a racially offensive or blatantly sexist or "novelty"-type username, I admit I would judge them immediately. I'd also prefer not to have that snap judgment come into play, though - that judgment I'm talking about in regards to avatars, I mean. If someone really likes anime and puts a picture from an anime up as their avatar I think it's likely I would tend to dismiss them as "less serious" due to my lack of interest in anime and lack of context regarding whatever character they chose, plus some not-so-great previous interactions with some Hubski users who were really, really fond of some anime I'd never heard of and frequently referenced said anime in their posts. Is that my bias? Yes, absolutely. I don't want to introduce my bias. So I don't want your picture, unless you put it up yourself on your bio. i DO have one or two pictures/drawing of me up on my bio but their inaccuracy is one of the reasons I keep them: that, and the fact that they derive pretty purely from Hubski users and interactions, which makes them "belong" to the site in a way that general pictures don't. Pictures can be such cheap grabs for attention. Even if I didn't use them that way, I feel like others very easily could opt to do so. I don't want to walk into a situation already feeling a certain way about the person I'm talking to. Pictures are much more likely to influence an opinion I have than a username. Let me figure out how I feel about you through words and discussion. Isn't that what hubski is about?
even if hubski did have avatars you could presumably choose to not have one. but even then you'd be judged on your lack of an avatar if having one is the norm. so really there's no escaping it! this is well put and i agree. i think hubski has a good balance between the two extremes of user personalization. the two extremes imo, is on one end a forum/comment section with mandatory social network connection (ghost accounts can of course be made but they will be shunned by a community that advocates real sounding name plus a human profile pic) which hopes to engender thoughtfulness instead of fanatical comments like on yt, twitter etc. the other end being the 4chan/bathroom wall situation i mentioned above. p.s. has anyone here heard of ryder ripps' dump.fm? where communication is predominantly image based.I don't want to walk into a situation already feeling a certain way about the person I'm talking to. Pictures are much more likely to influence an opinion I have than a username. Let me figure out how I feel about you through words and discussion. Isn't that what hubski is about?