Another issue I'd add is that real names are potentially too generic. Basically, if everyone used their real name, how many John Smiths would there be? Would it be confusing?

The rigidity around 1 username/alias per person on most platforms forces people to adopt mostly memorable names that should distinguish them from the crowd.

Interesting conclusion. It sounds like the bystander effect. I wonder how many big ideas don't get the action they deserve because upon hearing it we assume it's already getting the effort/energy it deserves and that there isn't room for our contribution.

I've recently started to try and participate more in online discussions like LessWrong (technically this is my first post here). However in doing so I've realized what feels like a gaping hole in digital identity. No one knows who I am, and how could they? They see my name, my photo, my short bio, and they have no way of knowing the complex person behind it all.

In my experience, when I interact with others, I feel like I am often misunderstood because the people I'm interacting with don't have adequate context of me to understand where my perspective is coming from. This plays out positively and negatively. Ultimately it causes people to unwittingly apply bias because they don't have the information they need to make sense of why I'm saying what I'm saying and how who I am plays a factor in what I'm trying to communicate.

It seems to me that currently, the most effective way to establish a digital identity is by surrounding yourself with individuals with similar affinities and building social networks that establish your identity within those fields. This seems like a complicated and inefficient process and I'm curious to hear if I'm way off base and what others see as ways to establish a powerful digital identity.