When you research online anonymity you will find most anonymity articles discuss solutions to the problems anonymity presents or the downfalls while not focusing very much on the upside of anonymity. Online anonymity allows people to be anonymous online for good behavior and bad behavior but there is more than just the negatives online anonymity brings. Online anonymity has so much to offer just from the simple fact that you can be anonymous when expressing your judgments, comments and feelings and this can lead to opportunities, safety and privacy. The problem that arises a debatable topic about online anonymity is that internet users get carried away and start to harass this privilege of online anonymity. Online anonymity is an issue a lot of people are debating, especially since new technologies, websites, and applications test the waters of incorporating anonymity in their context. Marlene Trump, Dean of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, states discourse is a means in a democracy and a means to debate complex and complicated ideas, however, some discourse tends to go too far and people see the origin to this is anonymity (Anonymity Online Debate, 2016, 0:45). Some people view anonymity as the cause to derogatory discourse, harassment and uncivil behavior online, while others view anonymity as free speech that enables a unique way to solve problems while offering certain opportunities. Some individuals may think “why should this involve people who are not even affected by anonymity?” or “why does this matter, I do not even use the internet”. If you do not use online anonymity then you should get on the bandwagon and take advantage of it immediately because it is a helping stone into new ideas, debates, solutions and opportunities. Despite the flaws like bullying online anonymity is a unique way to debate complex and complicated ideas, it also allows people who are afraid of speaking on a matter that is dangerous to speak their mind with out any type of identification.
Most of the articles about anonymity online are about eliminating anonymity or discussing about the negative effects it causes. However, often times you will come across an online anonymity article that is pro anonymity. For example, Eun-Ju Lee, the editor in chief of the journal Human Communication research, came up with the project, “Despite Flaws, Comments are good for public discourse”. Despite Lee’s acknowledgment that online anonymity has problems she sees value. Lee’s positions stand to not shut down the user comment sections because she views online anonymity as a positive one, as it is an essential tool for democracy. For example, Lee says “user comment sections are nonetheless and important ongoing experiment that tests the viability of deliberative democracy” (Lee 3). In other words, Lee acknowledges online anonymity is a tool used for choices made in a democracy. However, as Lee demonstrates the upside to anonymity, she goes on to explain an argument to reduce abusive comments. For example, Lee says “such an attempt to increase public accountability may reduce, if not completely eliminate, abusive comments” (Lee 5). In other words, Lee claims in order to reduce derogatory discourse online, there has to be public accountability. Lee’s attempt to lessen incivility online involves her introduction to the strategy of allowing readers to log in to a website through the use of social media. A way of illustration, Lee claims, “rather than closing the comments sections altogether, many Koreans news organizations allow readers to log in through their social media accounts” (Lee 5). Lee claims this strategy can potentially eliminate incivility, but she does not serve enough evidence in her project to solidify this claim, making it an easy claim to dismiss. With Lee’s project I can highlight the fact that online discourse is healthy for democracy, but I will dismiss Lee’s attempt to lessen incivility online.
Some people think in order to eliminate abusive comments there has to be rules and restrictions, however doing so gets in the way of the purpose of online anonymity. Anonymity should be allowed to all people to freely express thoughts, ideas and opinions with out the risk of having consequences with an identity. Although Eun-Ju Lee and her article, “Despite Flaws, Comments Are Good for Public Discourse” argues the positives of anonymity and pseudonyms she reveals that “increasing public accountability may reduce, if not completely eliminate, abusive comments” (Lee 5). I agree with the fact that Lee argues comments sections are essential for a deliberative democracy and can support this from the Anonymity Online Debate from Arizona State University. Though, I largely disagree with the fact that increasing accountability will not reduce or eliminate abusive behavior. Increasing accountability will not stop any unethical discourse, but it will remain the same. This can be shown from the article “Banish the troll but web debate needs anonymity” written by John Naughton, a professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University.
The comments section is an essential use to practice free speech and an essential tool for democracy. Eun-Ju Lee seems to agree; she claims, “[comment sections] wherein public minded citizens openly share reasonable arguments and are gracious about their opponents’ perspective” (Lee 3). I can extend this position from the use of the Arizona State debate of online anonymity, where Dean Marlene Trump of New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences speaks about discourse and the aid it brings. As Trump introduces the debate, she claims that discourse is essential to creating solution and solving problems. For example, Trump says, “it is an exceptionally important thing to do is discuss how you have discourse in a civil society and what it means to live in a democracy. And how we debate in complex and complicated ideas. And think about things in rich and nuance ways because this is how we solve problems” (Anonymity Online Debate, 2016, 0:55). Trump seems to extend Lee’s argument by saying discourse is important to solving problems. This extra use of information from a Dean of a college in a major university creates the impression that Lee’s claim is strong.
However, I do not agree with Lee’s claim that restricting pseudonyms will decrease uncivil discourse online. Restricting pseudonyms will have no effect on preventing uncivil discourse online because the underlying cause of uncivil discourse is from a psychological standpoint of each individual. I can support this challenge from an article written by Professor John Naughton of Open University. First off, Lee claims that “an attempt to increase public accountability may reduce, if not completely eliminate, abusive comments” (Lee 5). But a complex research from the (South) Korea Communications Commission used by Naughton seems to support my challenge. The experiment was conducted to see if people would behave better online when resident registration or credit card details were required to be submitted for Korean websites. It did not go the way people would expect, because mean and nasty comments were still being produced. For example, Naughton says, “the commission announced recently that it was withdrawing the registration requirement because it had been ineffective in preventing people from posting abusive messages or spreading false rumors” (Naughton 7). In other words, the registration had no effect on uncivil discourse because it had a hard time preventing abusive language.
People view the derivative to uncivility online from anonymity, however that is not the case; uncivility online is more than just being anonymous, uncivility comes the a more psychological stand point. This means that any type of uncivility, whether it be online or anywhere else comes from the person itself not their identity. So it is obvious that shutting down anonymity will not effect uncivil discourse. For example, the research “New Communication Technologies, Old Questions” from the University of Minnesota, two psychologists, Marco C. Yzer and Brian G. Southwell claim “new communication technologies do not fundamentally alter the theoretical bounds of human interaction; such interaction continues to be governed by basic human tendencies” (Yzer Southwell 1). In other words, the advancement of technology, from applications, websites and social media do not have an effect of human interaction. The human interaction, which includes online anonymity is determined by their own basic individual’s propensities.
One video that illustrates the hate anonymity brings, is a short clip that went viral called “#morethanmean- women in sports ‘face’ harassment”. The title is ironic because it has the word “face”, but in fact this video involves women sports journalists who do not face the people who send real hateful tweets. The video is an example of what some people anonymously say online to other people and its intention was to show the viewers their stand of online anonymity by showing hateful comments intended to real people. The clip goes from light somewhat funny jokes about the sports journalists to tear jerking, hard to say comments. For example, when the up beat music starts to dim down one man reads a tweet intended for Julie DiCaro, “Hopefully [Julie DiCaro] is Bill Cosby’s next victim. That would be classic” (Justnotsports, 2016, 2:16). The man reading this to Julie is obviously uncomfortable reading this, but the anonymous tweeter had no problem writing this evidenced from his casual diction of “that would be classic”. As the video goes on it gets even worse because of the progression of difficulty the men present as they say the tweets. In many instances after the men say a tweet, they say “I’m sorry” under their breath or they wince from being uncomfortable. One man even says, “I’m having trouble looking at you when I’m saying these things” (Justnotsports, 2016, 3:05). These examples conclude to the fact that the videos stance on anonymity is a negative one, but seeing that the women are in a male dominated business, it is expected to have harsh criticism.
When people speak about their anonymity experiences, it can be very cruel. However, not a lot of people talk about anonymity in a way that is beneficial. That is because people often seem to report the bad news rather than the good news for example, the news reports when a plane crashes, not when it lands. So to continue my claim that anonymity is useful for the growth of women in societies that target women, I will complicate the viral video, “#Morethanmean-women in sports ‘Face’ Harassment”. The video argues that women reporters in the sports world are the recipients of harsh criticism and derogatory remarks. Being in a male dominated industry it makes the derogatory remarks less about anonymity and more about misogamy. When you are in a endocentric field like sports casting, it is predicted that you will get a lot of direct and anonymous harassment. To complicate this though I will introduce the positives from the article written by Sara Baker, “Why online anonymity is critical for women” has an amount of perspectives and examples that show women do and can use anonymity for their own interest. The things I show or exemplify is critical to showing the other side of anonymity, the beneficial side, in the views of women, rather than the more hateful position. This article used to complicate the viral video, uses the Association for Progressive Communications’ (APC), a nameless coalition, case studies. For example, the APC studied the women’s rights activists in Pakistan and Latin America and it showed, “In an atmosphere of endemic violence against women and a culture of impunity, digital security tactics like anonymity can allow women to continue working to uphold human rights without risk to themselves, their colleagues and their families” (Baker 5). In other words, in a world of abuse and violence directed at women who try to voice their opinion or do anything that is considered a violation of a folkway, anonymity is literally a life saver to women who live in these standards. The article, “Why online anonymity is critical for women” complicates the viral video in order to support the claim that anonymity is good for women who are not able to express themselves. This complication illustrates that the benefits of anonymity are greatly outweighed by the abuse.
Another article discussing anonymity talks about the privacy anonymity brings and whether the privacy is a positive or negative attribute. Jillian York, the director for International Freedom of Expression for Electronic Frontier Foundation, came up with the project, “The right to anonymity is a matter of privacy”. York’s stand on anonymity and pseudonyms is that it is there to provide to a wide range of individuals looking to voice their opinion with out the the effects of using your own identity. In the article, York focuses on privacy from the political scene, and he uses the outed anonymous blogger John Blevins to do so. John Blevins, a professor at South Texas College of Law, was called out for blogging under a pseudonym; he was called “irresponsible” and a “coward”. One instance York explained “ [Blevins] feared losing tenure and legal clients, but he also feared putting the jobs of family members in the political space at risk” (York 8). In other words, Blevins used pseudonyms in protection of himself and his family just because he was afraid of his position on a matter. There are many people like Professor John Blevins, many that have not been discovered and this is a prime example to support the fact that individuals use anonymity and pseudonyms in order for them to achieve a goal or express their feelings.
As technology continues to grow, privacy issues has been a more demanding issue to be debated about, but anonymity is essential for the growth of one person because the privacy allows the person to express themselves with their identity. The article, “The right to anonymity is a matter of privacy” written by Jillian York, argues that anonymity is useful for people in all settings, such as work, online, the public and politics. I largely agree, and will support this from showing numerous anonymous perspectives from an open forum, “Pros/Cons of anonymity in a modern democracy?” from Politics beta. The progression of technology has allowed many more anonymous commentary and forums, along with this people are more willing and able to express their thoughts on current situations such as anonymity with out the attachment of their identity. In one instance, the user “user4012” discusses the reason why anonymity is helpful when he/she expresses his/her feelings on political views. For example, user4012 says, “I would never openly state my support for drug legalization because I don’t want my current/future employers finding that out about me” (Pros/Cons of anonymity in a modern democracy). In other words, user4012 uses anonymity to express his thoughts on drug legalization with the fear that he does not want his employers to find out about his position. The forum from Politics Beta is not only a useful sight to express your feelings about politics anonymously, but it illustrates the agreeable Jillian York’s claim. It does this because York claims anonymity is essential to the progression and expression of certain debates and user4201 expresses his feelings about drug legalization with out the fear of his future employers not hiring him.
yasmingrwordpresscom 