Read (by Friday, March : “What Is Gamergate, and Why? An Explainer for Non-Geeks” by Jay Hathaway
“A Case for Pseudonyms” by Jillian York
“Anonymity, Pseudonymity,and the Agency of Online Identity: Examining the Social Practices of r/Gonewild” by Emily van der Nagel and Jordan Frith
Write: A response that addresses the strengths and problems of online identity. What are possible solutions?
I felt that I learned a lot after watching these three videos on anonymity on the Internet. There are many benefits to having ones online identity anonymous. One major benefit is that one is able to freely express themselves and their opinions without getting judged. Another benefit to ones identity being anonymous is that it provides an open environment for discussion. Knowing that their identity is anonymous, people will also be more prone to provide honest feedback.
Although there are many benefits to having an anonymous online identity, there are also many burdens. One major burden to anonymity on the Internet is that people will be more prone to cyber bulling. Because people will be more prone to be vocal in their responses, many could get offended.
One possible solution to this issue could be to create an anonymous site so that people can freely express their opinions, however make it easy to report comments that are aimed to attack an individual. Those that are constantly getting their comments reported could then have the consequence of being removed from the site. Another possible solution could be to make it apparent to individuals who use this site that they may be subject to cyber bullying when using the site.
After reading the articles and watching the videos, a few blaring strengths and weaknesses are apparent to me. The most controversial idea that stuck out to me was the concept of anonymity. On one side, anonymity is great because it allows for real, unfiltered conversation to take place. But on the other hand, anonymity is terrible because it allows for real, unfiltered conversation to take place. What anonymity provides is both a strength and a weakness. I am for anonymity because I believe that the pros outweigh the cons. Yes, anonymity does allow for unfiltered conversation to take place, which is a bad thing more times than not. The real world would be chaotic if everyone just said the first thing that popped into their minds all the time. But because people mature, we learn that some things need to be said, and other things don’t. That maturity allows us to talk and live together in harmony. But now, imagine that we took away anonymity on the internet. This would indirectly also take away those true, genuinely unfiltered conversations. I think that completely erasing those unfiltered conversations would not be an improvement to society. We need these conversations to know what is honestly on each of our minds.
But some might say, “What about cyber bullying? Doesn’t anonymity allow for a person to say whatever they want, free from accountability for what they say? Couldn’t we just erase this problem from society if we took away the right to be anonymous?” I agree in the sense that cyber bullying is a problem, but I want to propose a different solution because of the fact that I do not think it would be beneficial to society if we took away anonymity altogether. Let’s look at why cyber bullying exists. Bullies on the internet exist and thrive on watching others react in a negative way to their insults. I know it is easier said than done, but if one could just simply ignore those bullies and not give those bullies the satisfaction of seeing a negative reaction, they might realize the worthlessness of what they are trying to do.
While reading the Gawker article on Gamergate, I was rather surprised to find out how reactionary people can be towards protecting the identity of Gamers. There is certainly a social stigma whereby Gamers are seen as males who continually promotion sexism and violence within their communities. That being said, I never actually believed that there would be such a reactionary response as there was against Zoe Quinn. The actions that were taken by the gamers of that online community that many of us even partake in (reddit, etc…) is rather surprising. More shockingly, is how #Gamergate can be manipulated and veiled as protecting certain interests while masking the real cause (of maintaining a very narrow-minded stereotype of video games) as being a way to maintain Gamer journalism accurate.
The “A Case for Pseudonyms” article written by Jillian York makes a very assertive stance right from the beginning by explaining that pseudonyms have huge implications when it comes to the online community. York explains that using our real names within the online community allows for an increased awareness of what we post and how we interact with people online. However, those who ask for the use pseudonyms within the online community state that being able to freely post under whatever name we wish to post as, allows people to continue to express themselves. Personally, I am feel rather conflicted by this for two reasons. The first one is that even when posting my replies to these articles, I refuse to use my last name incase a potential employer manages to get ahold of their hands on all of my old readings. On the other hand, I also think that people who post online should be able to post what they feel. Yet being behind a screen gives people some sort of screen to hide behind.
The articles and videos about anonymity revealed the goodness and ugly truth that comes along with Internet users using a pseudonym. In Jillian York’s article, she points out how teenagers who are part of the LGBT community feel safer using a pseudonym because of the verbal abuse they endure online. Emily van der Nagel and Jordan Frith’s article presents a counterargument. They explain how Facebook’s CEO and marketing director think “having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” They also argue that people behave better when their name is shown because they cannot hide behind a username. Both of these examples are good arguments for both sides of the dispute. I agree with both in the sense that identity should not be necessary, however, identity does help keep the web less hostile. Identity makes people fear to post how they really feel, which takes away from genuine, solid conversation. The problem is that when proper identity is not required, people abuse this power by attacking others online.
A possible solution to this issue could be to create one social networking site that offers both a platform that requires identity and one that does not. Both platforms operate and look the same way besides the point that one platform has identity and the other does not. People have the option to choose either option, however, they must realize the rules and regulations for each site. For the identity platform, users are willing to put up their actual name and must agree to terms that security is hindered by the requirement of giving one’s true identity. However, if someone were to pick a fight, everyone would know who it is since they give out their true identity. Phillip’s idea of warning user that cyberbullying may occur is a good idea that could be incorporated into the non-identity platform.
This ability of having a hidden identity does have its positives. Anonymity allows for people to feel more free in expressing themselves. There will be no link back to who they are and they are free from any kind of judgment. Feelings of embarrassment become less and no person has to wonder whether or not they are asking a stupid question. I do believe that anonymity holds a lot more negative weight. This hidden cloak allows for various forms of cyberbullying, where people hold no accountability for what that say. It becomes a free for all, where responsibility for what you say and how you act diffuses down to nothing. There are millions of victims as a result of this ability to be anonymous and I feel like the negatives outweigh the positives. The most likely solution would be to take away the possibility for anonymity but I feel if that were to happen people would be less open to sharing embarrassing questions or statements. My solution is that before people are able to join Twitter or Facebook or Snapchat, they must pass a anonymity/cyberbullying test. All across the country there could be Twitter, Facebook, or Snapchat home bases where the tests could be distributed, where applicants can go and take the test. There would be proctors there to decrease cheating and a time constraint. I feel that by people making the effort to get to these home bases and take the tests it shows a sense of accountability, responsibility, and acknowledgment about the negative aspects anonymity provides. If this were a possibility, I think less people would choose to use these technologies in a negative way because they went through a big process in order to get onto the media in the first place.
After reading the assigned articles, there are a few points that amused me the most of online anonymity. The society in which we live can often be very old-fashioned, making it risky to make certain declarations, have thoughts, or have a different approach to things than society. Anonymity is vital for online debates concerning many important issues such as harassment etc. Additionally, anonymity is valuable for people who wish to report illegal activities without fear of being caught or targeted in the future. If anonymity did not exist, such instances could result in public ridicule, or even legal action. Dangerous exploitation and unlawful activity on the net is one of the most noticeable problems to anonymity on the net. Many net users felt that users who utilize anonymity services in order to post insulting messages or commit prohibited acts should be exposed and open to the general public.
Possible solutions to such issues for e.g. cyber bullying may be providing parent workshops that increases their responsiveness to the problem and signs of cyberbullying and other forms of abuse. Another solution that many of my peers have pointed out maybe the need for a separate social media platform that avails the opportunity for everyone to express their opinions free of identity. If people do not like this idea, they can avoid using this platform. It is simple, convenient, and the most achievable solution in this increasingly globalizing world.
I see this as a dilemma. For as York mentions, many good opinions have come out of having a pseudonym, ideas that were worth spreading. Even though we might think that today we have enough freedom of speech so we wont have a use for it, I still think we need it. for example, not everyone have the opportunity to express themselves under their real name and the right to be anonymous should be persevered. It is also something used for protection. But as often, the Internet play with its own rules and since we don’t have a “Internet-police” who can make sure that we are civil and appropriate online, there must often be a form of identification. As stated, it “improves user behaviour and create a more cicil environment” (York). Which if often important since the internet have become a playground for bullying and illegal activities.
So where should one draw a line? Thats where the dilemma comes in, it is a problem that cannot be solved, only handled. One solution could be to try to, in some form, restrict the use of anonymity to specific “cases”. Since it is the opinions of people who cannot speak openly that we want to preserve. Not the bullying of a 14 year old. But with that said, it really is a hard thing to handle the right way.
The problem of online identity has a lot of pros and cons. It’s hard for me to pick just one side because there are valid points for both, that the articles all make. The reasons for anonymity is for protection of identity. An example given in one of the articles was people part of the gay lesbian community trying to keep their identity private or people who are subject of harassment also trying to keep their identity private. It also gives people a chance to express themselves and not be embarrassed. The cons of it are that it causes a less friendly online environment. When people don’t know your identity, it’s easier to say mean things to people and easier to harass people. When your identity is given, it keeps the online community much more kind hearted. One solution to this problem is to make an account where you can be anonymous if you would like, but have rude or inappropriate comments deleted, and that person kicked off the website.
Online anonymity is crucial to providing an outlet for individuals to be honest and frank about their opinions, feedback, and stories. But anonymity gets sticky when people start to use it to say hurtful things that they would normally keep to themselves. At times, I wonder if anonymity is really necessary, as it seems that people have turned to it exclusively to post sexist, racist, or homophobic content online. On my personal Tumblr, for example, most of the people who message an inbox anonymously are posting something outrageously offensive or simply just useless. People turn to anonymity because their better judgement tells them that what they’re about to say would reflect poorly on their character. So yes, anonymity has its perks. But how often do people really turn to anonymity to provide constructive feedback? My solution would be to give more power to “flagging” inappropriate content. Accounts and IP addresses that have been linked to threatening posted material should be disabled and things like cyber bullying and cyber harassing should be treated like actual crimes, and not just small misbehaviors.
After reading the articles, the one thing that stood out to me the most was defining the difference between anonymity and pseudonymity. There are both strengths and problems to these concepts when defining what it means to have an online identity. As York points out, that having a pseudonymous name provides a level of comfort for some people who fear that they might be harassed or cyberbullied. However, she also points out that using a person’s real name like on social media websites like Facebook can actually “improve user behavior and create a more civil environment” where it is easier for people to “go after offenders” (York). Although I agree with York on her point that if someone uses their real name to harass people online that it would be easier to catch them, I do not agree that it would create a “more civil environment”. I think that if someone is really upset about something someone said or posted online and they want to comment back and harass that person they will do without caring about the fact that they are using their real name. Also, on a website like Facebook, some people will make accounts and not use their real name even but still use an actual picture of themselves. In this way, part of their identity is still public even though they are using a pseudonymous name. This is the reason as to why pseudonymity has more problems than anonymity. With complete anonymity, people can say whatever they want and no one will ever know the identity of that person. However, there are still many problems. For example, since people can say anything a lot of what is said is unfiltered and has no boundaries so it is much easier to cyberbully. Also, if someone makes a statement online that gets like one million likes or one million retweets that person will never get recognition for what they said. Nagel and Frith also point out that trolling and framing have also become big problems due to anonymity on the Internet.
Some possible solutions to end cyberbullying and to use anonymity in a more helpful way would be to find a way to limit what people say on various websites like Twitter or Facebook by only allowing them to say positive things. I agree with Mary and that the negative comments should get automatically deleted or if that person is constantly posting negative comments after about ten comments a virus could automatically pop up on the screen forcing the computer crash. Another solution would be to get rid of anonymity completely so that everyone would be forced to use their real name in everything they posted.
Online identity can be an empowering aspect to your life. However, what matters is the way that you use online identity to empower yourself. The debatable topic at hand is whether or not one should exist online under pseudonyms. Some argue that the opportunity for anonymity is important to those who, primarily for safety reasons, feel the need to conceal their identity. Others feel as though it is possible for anyone to maintain a single identity; in fact, there are some prominent figures expressing this sentiment. Mark Zuckerbug stated, “having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” Another opinion that stands out is Google CEO, Eric Shmidt’s statement, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” The main problem with online anonymity is that it makes people feel free to cyber bully and perpetuate issues such as, misogyny, racism, and sexism, because they have somewhat escaped the option of accountability. As long as there are humans on Earth, there will be disagreements regarding just about everything in existence. Online identity will bring forth both positivity and negativity into the world, until miraculously one day someone proposes a real solution.
One change to online sites that would potentially contribute to the greater solution
would be to encourage positivity and kindness from Internet users. In comment boxes, the prompt could serve as a reminder of the most ethical way to approach online posting. For example, it could state, “Say something nice…”. However, I imagine that would become annoying after a while, considering we are all individuals seeing through unique paradigms, who have the freedom to express our opinions.
I definitely agree with keeping the idea/concept of anonymity. The most convincing example was when the Gay and Lesbian community had a site where they could anonymously talk about when they were harassed because of the sexual preference. I think anonymity is really important for our community because there are many extremist out there who would do anything to verbally and or physically hurt anyone who either doesn’t agree with them or has a specific preference or view.
Though anonymity can allow people to say things with out taking responsibility for it. I do agree that this is also a serious issue, but I still think that it is important for our society to be able to express itself blindly.
My personal views regarding anonymity differ when considering the users perspective and the publics perspective. As a user, anonymity can feel very protecting. There is a sense that your personal life and your social media life can be separate, if desired. One also may feel they have more control over who they portray themselves as. Social media has been attractive since it has given many the chance to reshape their identity. Current social platforms have granted us a sense of control that is very appealing. Anonymity plays off this sense of control, allowing a user to choose who they interact with, what they say and who they portray themselves as. The experience of engaging in social media can act as an escape from ones reality. On the flip side, to the public, an anonymous user name can be disconcerting. It can make one question who they are actually interacting with. Personally, even when I know the exact identity of the user, I feel more disconnected from them compared to my friends who use their real names.
As a user, deciding to use your own name could be a sign you are not paranoid or aware of potential consequences. You may also be promoting yourself. However, ironically using your own name seems to have more consequences than using being anonymous. A user then must be aware of how they are representing themselves online. Most users are unaware of how accessible their information truly is. Socially this may hurt them because others can make preconceived notions about their personality, especially from platforms such as Facebook. As “What is Gamergate, and Why? An Explainer for Non-Geeks” discussed, one can easily become a victim. Plus, firms and schools now take social media usage into great consideration. However, from the public’s view it is much more comforting to be interacting with someone online with a real name. Anonymity strips the humanity out of connecting online to an even further extent. Thus, a real name can provide a sense one is interacting with a real human being.
I feel that a solution to this could be providing an option to show your real name to only certain individuals. In all other cases an anonymous name would be provided for security reasons. For instance, once I accepted a friend request my user name would automatically change to my real name, so that only those who I trust and interact with daily can know my true identity. This eliminates the possibility of outsiders accessing my personal information.
This idea came to me after reading “A Case for Pseudonyms” by Jillian York and “Anonymity, Pseudonymity,and the Agency of Online Identity: Examining the Social Practices of r/Gonewild” by Emily van der Nagel and Jordan Frith. Both articles discuss the pressures that Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and other platforms, such as Google+, has put on its users to provide their real name. I don’t understand why there can’t be an option, especially since this is a very personal issue that could potentially lead to serious consequences.
Online anonymity is a rather tricky topic, as both sides have very good points. Anonymity can be a positive thing in many cases, such as when having one’s real identity out in the world can be dangerous. As mentioned in the articles, online bullying would possibly decrease as a person’s identity is concealed from the bullies. On a less serious note, being anonymous can make people less scared or nervous to say what they think online, encouraging free speech. However, the negative side of anonymity is that free speech can also get out of hand and become chaotic. Or, cyberbullying can be an issue when the anonymous person is the bully, and not the victim, making it more difficult to catch this person. For every issue that comes with online anonymity, this is both a positive and a negative side of things. The issue is seeing if the positives outweigh the negatives, and vise versa.
A possible solution may be just to leave it alone, and let the people choose whether or not they wish to be anonymous, instead of social media platforms requiring it. Or, letting people choose between being anonymous or not, depending on what they are doing. For example, perhaps I would like my Facebook page to be in my real name, but when I comment on a video, I would like my identity to be concealed. Perhaps the positive outcomes of this would balance out the negative, although it is hard to say. This solution would be more of an experiment first, but if it is successful, it could actually become a viable solution.
Watching the three videos and reading the articles have really allowed me to explore my personal feelings towards anonymity. There are pros and cons to anonymity on the internet and both can have severe results. The positive aspects of anonymity include that anonymity gives people the ability to speak freely, that is, without judgement and virtually without personal negative consequences. This, however, can have severe consequences on others when they are targeted. Cyber bullying is a real problem that can have devastating effects on people. However, anonymity gives people the security to speak candidly and honestly, which can be a positive thing for the individual and to group discussions, but can cause issues among those who have disparities in their opinions or lifestyles.
The easiest solution for this issue, in my opinion, is to raise generations of people who are accepting of those who identify differently than themselves. We should be supporting women like Anita Sarkeesian for promoting and fighting for equality for all genders. However, a more immediate solution would be to create a “flagging” system where those who CONSISTENTLY are violent, hateful, hurtful, or disrespectful towards others that transcribes all media sites so that a site can be warned and see what has been previously posted, and then decide if they want to allow this person on their site.
After reading and seeing the videos I definitely think that it is important to respect privacy and anonymity. I feel like the article by Jillian York made some of the most convincing arguments pro-anonymity. The passage that really spoke to me and summed up the pro-anonymity argument was: “using “real” names can have real consequences” by Jillian York. York claimed this after using examples of political activists and members of the LGBT community that would have had real consequences if they used their real names. Also, as a person who was bullied for the majority of my life I understand why people prefer to hide behind a pseudonym. Pseudonyms create a safe space, a safety wall between the user and the rest of the world. When you are bullied pseudonyms seem like the perfect safe heaven through which we can express our real thoughts.
Although I understand that real identities can help with police investigations, I think that technology can do it as well. I mean in most cop shows there is always a hacker that works for the cops and always figures out who the real person behind the pseudonym is. I’m not sure if this applies to real life, but there must be some way cops have to figure this out. Of course, real names make it easier for us to place an identity to users, but what about those who don’t feel comfortable, or would be put in danger because people know who they are.
The subject of online anonymity is definitely something that has been discussed in several of my classes this semester and last semester, and I think it is something that is worth discussing because it has become increasingly prevalent. The internet is a great place to voice ideas and opinions and offers us many platforms to do so. People use their internet identities to express themselves in ways they normally wouldn’t if their real identities were displayed, thus creating a nice safety net. As important as privacy and anonymity has become online, I have seen some very offensive comments online including homophobic, racist and sexist comments that sometimes I feel that people write just for the sake of it and under the protection of anonymity. For example on Yik Yak, an app which has become very popular amongst the university’s students is completely anonymous, and some of the comments I’ve seen on there make me question the people I’m surrounded by because of the amount of offensive things people say, and I think it is brought on by the mask that anonymity provides. That being said, I do agree that anonymity and internet privacy should remain, however there should be more effective ways and conscious efforts to curb offensive comments.
The topic of anonymity has been brought up in many contexts, not just when referring to social median and the Internet but also in the cases in the media. However, it can be safe to say that anonymity and both its problems and positive points is best described through examples found online. As demonstrated through the videos and articles, there exists a wide variety of views about anonymity. Some support its use by saying that anonymity helps foster imagination, honesty and free speech. Others retort back by saying that the use of it allows for violence, loss of integrity and morality. Whatever your stance is, there is no denying that anonymity has both its negative and positive aspects. Anonymity on the web allows users to be able say and express themselves in ways that are greatly limited in the physical world. One thing that supports both sides of the argument of anonymity is that there is a lack of accountability. That is the source of the problem when it comes to acts of cyber bulling and other threats and acts of violence made online.
I believe that there is no real solution to the problem of anonymity on the web. If laws were made to curtail the use of anonymity, there would be huge uproars made by people who believed that their freedom of speech was being restricted. I think it’s best to let the online world run itself. If there are cases that come forth that show anonymity at its worst, other users will shut it down as many have in the past.
After watching these videos and reading the articles there are several things that really stand out to me. One being anonymity on the internet. I believe that it some cases it is so important for people being able to say what they want without having felt judged or looked at differently by others. But with that, people could also be hurtful and do wrong to others while being anonymous. It is a very difficult topic that you can see being argued both ways. Another thing that really struck me about these videos and articles was sexism in gaming, and practically how much it actually happens. As someone who usually only plays sports video games, it was not something that I really ever thought about. But hearing about these different games that do seem to have a sexist view towards women does seem to be a problem. Also, another interesting thing that I did not now was that 47% of gamers are females. That kind of stat really blew my mind. I never would have dreamed that many women play video games. With numbers that high, and sexism clear in video games, it is something that really needs to be looked at. I think that instead of challenging developers to change, I think it would be more beneficial to get the consumers to change what they want. Developers are always going to do what makes the most money, but if you change what consumers wish to see in video games, then you will definitely see the developers change.
I think after reading all three articles, and after watching the videos, I have come to the conclusion that online identity is a very good thing for social media and all Internet devices. One of the big problems with being anonymous online is that there is no one to hold you accountable for the things that are posted, rather with online identity there is a direct connection between the material that is posted and the user that posted it.I think in America there is a huge problem especially among adolescents, with the maturity, and understanding that whatever is posted on the Internet is for everyone in the entire world to see, not just their friends. There’s a saying that it’s not etched in stone, and that is something that completely is obliterated by, with the use of the Internet. With the stone it is in one location and whoever seems deposit will see what is ever written on it, however with the Internet what is ever posted on it whether or not is meant to be shared, Will instantaneously be connected interviewed by millions of people across the earth. I think it big thing that children using especially, teenagers, is the lack of parental supervision.
Coming from law-enforcement parenting, I have been supervised ever since I began Facebook my freshman year of high school, all the way up to the end of my junior year. This supervision, I find extremely valuable, even at the time I didn’t appreciate it.my parents knew the repercussions of posting inappropriate things on the social networking, because they understood that whatever was posted would be held and associated with me as an individual. Coming from a law-enforcement backgrounds, they see the negative effects of not having a censorship of your material. With individuals who experience social media harassment, online bullying, and or negative effects of social media, and are usually being attacked by anonymous, or associated with a façade, that allows for a mask to be presented in front of the user.
Countless times you see kids in high school being bullied online, and this is because those kids are not accountable for the things that they are posting, and think that just because that they are behind a computer that they are exempt from any kind of consequences resulting from the content that they post. I conclude this post with stating that there are no negative or problems with online identity, only strengths and solutions to this digital age of carelessness and lack of responsibility.
After absorbing the knowledge bestowed upon me by these authors and speakers, the benefits and weaknesses of online anonymity are quite apparent. Anonymity can definitely help individuals express who they are, their true colors if they will, without the embarrassment of having their name attached to their statements. On the other hand, anonymity removes the accountability principle from the online world, which means that people may either post without thinking or post whatever they want. My solution: we as a global community simply need to be explicit about what areas of the internet are intended to be places to be anonymous and which places are intended to be connected to our names. This will help minimize the confusion that may come with the debate as well as bring benefits to both those in favor of and against online anonymity. Users can choose which community they want to be a part of and active in.
To start off, I highly agree with Chris Poole argument about people’s identity. “Poole argues that rather than online identity being like a mirror that reflects one true idea of self, people are instead more like diamonds: their identity is prismatic” (Frith and van der Nagel). There are multiple sides to people’s identities. People act differently when they are around different groups of people. It’s natural. It’s like a filter. Erving Goffman argument supports Poole. We do not act the same with our family at the dinner table like we do with our friends on a Friday night. We filter what we say and how we act according to the people around us and the environment that we are in. So when Zuckerberg said, “‘Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity’” (Frith and van der Nagel), people with “two identities” are actually just people who show different sides of their identity according to the group of people they are sharing it with. It is not correct to generalize and say that they all lack integrity.
As far as anonymity goes, there are definitely both strengths and weaknesses. Cyberbullying, for example, is a weakness because anonymity make it easier for people to post negative comments about someone else. They are “protected” because the person they are talking to does not know who they actually are. On the other hand, a strength of anonymity would allow someone who is insecure to voice their opinion or even seek help.
Pseudonymity allows people to have an account without having to provide personal information. They can provide as much or as little personal information that they want. The sharing of personal information on the internet is a safety issue. There are a lot of people who value their privacy and do not want others to know specific information about them. That is valid and should be respected. However, pseudonymity brings up the problem of impersonation. It possible for someone to impersonate celebrities for example. There are numerous pictures on the internet for impersonators to use. Those pictures aid the impersonator in convincing people that they are legit. From there, they can try and post things or say things that would hurt the real person that they are trying to impersonate. A solution to this problem would being stamps of verification on their social media profiles. This is already in action on sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
One of the main problems with anonymity is the fact that it allows people to say things they shouldn’t say because they know they can get away with it. In the case of Anita Sarkiseen and other female activists, they were repeatedly harassed and threatened because the people making the comments knew that their actions would never be connected back to them. I am aware that anonymity causes massive problems like these, however I agree with Jillian York in that the benefits of anonymity out way the drawbacks.
One of the benefits to anonymity is that people feel more inclined to speak their opinion if it will not come with repercussion. I had a professor once tell me that what you contribute adds to the experience of your peers. If you don’t contribute to the conversation then you’re short changing everyone else because there are ideas and thoughts that could have been sparked had you said something. Therefore, I think when you “force” people to use their real names, you’re really short changing everyone else because many people will no longer be willing to contribute to the conversation. I think this idea really encompasses the idea that pseudonym supporters are trying to portray. The idea is that people will contribute more to the conversation if you allow them to voice their opinions freely without fear of humiliation.
Many people argue that we should incorporate a real name policy to enforce civility. However, I agree with Emily van der nagel and Jordan Frith, in that people are always going to break the rules regardless of what you do. If you allow people to use pseudonyms there will always be some that take advantage of it to do wrong. However if you force people to use their real names, there will always be people who make fake profiles under fake names that look real. For example, Facebook requires people to use their real names but it doesn’t even work as demonstrated by the TV show Catfish, in which people are tricked and fall in love with others who have created fake Facebook profiles. The problem is there’s no way to prove if its your name or not, or at least its harder to do so for individuals who are not so prominent in our society; individuals who are under the radar if you will. As long as it sounds like a real name, you’ll get away with it.
Therefore, I really don’t see a reason to stop using pseudonyms. I like Chris Poole’s idea of the prismatic self. The idea is that there are different contexts where different behaviors are appropriate. But when it comes to social media, if you use your real name, all of those contexts get jumbled up together. However if you use a pseudonym, you can separate these contexts just like you would in real life. I think Reddit r/gonewild does a good job of illustrating this idea. The people who post on reddit use anonymity because they want to keep this part of their life separate from other parts. I also like Reddits idea of fostering a respectful culture within the site itself so they can allow for anonymity. This is a good way of preventing problems like harassment and threatening problems. I think another good way to find a happy medium is to use a system similar to that of YikYack where people can post anonymously but posts that are deemed inappropriate by the public can be down voted to the point where they are removed from the feed.
Since the Internet is still in his infancy, the cyber society that it consists of faces many different challenges in terms of social identity because it is such an open and loosely regulated platform that allows for endless possibilities when it comes to identity. It is a place for mentalities to clash, but not physically. Thus, people feel free to be whoever they desire to be in order to pit their wit within the online identity they create for themselves. This could be a good thing, but it could also be a disastrous phenomenon. I would first like to reference the positives that online identities have created to the global community. In terms of connectivity, being “always-online” and having your identity there allows a person to expand his or her social circle so much larger in much shorter time intervals. There is a certain sense of integrity that keeps you in check when being limited to using your Real ID which many massively profiting social platform has been restricted to these days. Organization is seamless, and the overall productivity of humanity as a unit is improved. However, on the flip side, having an online identity, or having any other identity for that matter, could be trouble. With the possibility of anonymity and privacy comes regulation of such privacy. How can one regulate massive amount of unfiltered information from online identities that are so disconnected from the real ones. People are given free-will over their keyboards and smartphones. Nobody is going to be restricted by anything but their conscience, and conscience is definitely not a constant thing. For those with a flawed sense of conscience, the controversies that can stem from this can create anarchy. For issues involve online identities and anonymity, I propose that there be a centralized system of algorithms that can intelligently filter the things being input in order to restrict controversial or immoral statements from being outputted on the Net. For instance, this system could indicate certain key phrases that signify instances of cyberbullying of a homosexual teenager, avoiding the risk of anonymous bullying or “cybermobbing”, and saving the teenager from possibly enter a state of endless fear and depression with the worst case scenario being suicide. The Internet is so new, and like anything that is new, it is not sufficiently secured, at least not in the sense of conscience. However, like anything that is new, it has massive potential to grow, and if regulations are put into the right place such as giving it an artificial conscientious regulator, it could become a safe community where online identities can prevail to bring the best out of society overall.
Anonymity has both positive and negative sides. On one hand people have been able to express themselves freely on the internet. It is often said that if you don’t want others to know then you shouldn’t say anything. Even though it holds some truth, sometimes people don’t have anyone to share their thoughts and feelings with. Locking up feelings is never good and can lead up to severe consequences such as suicide. Many may argue that using your real name will allow many to become more “civil” since they will be identified a lot faster. Being held accountable for your own actions is something that I agree with 100% but I think that it is still possible without forcing people to give their personal information. Having personal information online can be dangerous depending on how your using the internet. But the bottom line is that you should be able to identify yourself however you want. If you want to use your real information or not should be your own decision. Pages like Facebook may demand you to use your real name and that is fine because those are their rules. Other pages serve other purposes and for the sake of those purposes, the creators should get to decide wether they want people to use their real information or not. I think that this discussion can be solved by simply doing nothing. Creators and users should have a right to do what they want and if this ends up hurting other people there is always a way to discover real identities. Today is hard to trust people but not because of that and because of few cases were online anonymity has caused trouble will others have to pay by sacrificing their free will.
As I reed the articles and watched the videos, I realize how controversial this conversation is. I recognize that there are many different views and these views were presented to me in each article. Anonymity, is it a good idea? Although anonymity allows for freedom and security in who one is and what their views are, I think it allows for some people to take advantage of the privacy and unfilter their activity. The way I think about it is, if everyone could say anything they wanted then there would be lines crossed and people hurt everyday. By having a name attached to what you say, there is responsibility for what you say and whom you say it to. I believe there needs to be a fair balance between anonymity, usernames, and real identity.
There are Internet sources like Facebook that seem to be more for a real identity. Facebook is a place for who you are and what you do. The soul purpose for it is to connect with REAL friends of yours. On the other had, social medias like YikYak are meant to comment about comedic or interesting things that one experiences throughout their day. This does not seem to be a place to connect with friends, but a place of simple fun and entertainment. I think this all comes down to an old thing my mom used to say to my brother, “ If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”