Gabriella Coleman's Anonymity Online Serves Us All

The internet and the people on it can be very crucial. Social media allows people to express themselves in ways they feel can’t in the actual world. They express their feelings, their open to their own opinions, and so forth. However, the internet also consists of people who give unnecessary, mean, and hateful opinions to other people for reasons that no one truly understands. The podcast “Act One. Ask Not For Whom The Bell Trolls; It Trolls for Thee” by Lindsey West, is about a female who was constantly getting backlashed over the internet by whom she referred to as “trolls.” The internet is usually where people go to voice their opinions over what they feel is right or wrong; with Lindsey West, she had voiced her opinion and what she felt was wrong about male comedians using the rape term too often and using carelessly. A result of West voicing her opinion

Jessica Bennett used different real life examples to support her argument against the internet encouraging people to say or do things they wouldn’t. Bennett states “online there are few checks and balances and no due process, and validating the credibility of a claim is difficult, to say the least.”

Perhaps one of the most instrumental factors in the increasingly problematic adult misogynistic cyber-bullying scenarios is that each individual participating in the harassment is able to do so anonymously. Anonymity allows the online participants of misogynistic cyber-harassment to feel a sense of security from retribution and strips the human traits of empathy and morality from the participants. Phillip Zimbardo, a social psychologist, studies and observes the undressing of empathy and morality seen in individuals participating in anonymous activities (qtd. in Citron 58). Zimbardo concludes, “The study found that the anonymous students delivered twice as much electric shock to subjects as the non-anonymous students” (qtd. in Citron 58).

Hiding behind the screens as anonymous: Although it is getting harder to shield your identity these days, anonymity has been a key piece of the internet since its early days. It is so amazing to see how people behave when their true identity is masked. But now we have everything from outright trolls to habitual pranksters. This is the kind of behaviour that makes the whole internet, and particularly social media, less productive and enjoyable for all. If you want to say something and are afraid to have anyone know you said it, perhaps you should buck up and use common sense before putting it out there. Being offensive anonymously is not only cowardly, it shows a lack of

‘On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog’ the very popular and probably overused phrased that was captioned on the popular 1993 cartoon in the New Yorker by Peter Steinber depicting two dogs anonymously using a computer. This cartoon still adequately represents some areas of online discourse. Anonymity is still valued in some aspects of online communication as a way to mask a person’s identity allowing them to represent whatever role they choose as they engage (Motahari et al., 2010).

Jessica Bennett’s, The Flip Side of the Internet explains how the internet can be a fast road to stardom or a horrible ride down shame street.The internet can easily turn an innocent video or a malicious comment,or even a somewhat revealing picture into a harmful situation.One could quickly rise to fame or very easily be humiliated. However, it also touches on how our privacy is invaded by anyone with a camera and internet access. Once the video, picture, or comment about you has been sent to the internet, it remains there forever;for all to judge, share, even edit. Sadly, when someone abuses something so minute as a comment, there is little to no legal recourse.

People’s online presence differs from their personality in real life, they feel almost invincible thanks to anonymity, like they can say anything without repercussions and consequences. In Jon Ronson’s book, “So You’ve Been Publically Shamed”, he examines 4 people who have had their lives ruined by online harassment via social media platforms, with virtually no repercussions for the online shamers. The problem with internet is the mass amounts of threats sent and received everyday, which proves that our online citizenship should

Registration is the most simple and acceptable way of discouraging anonymity, and limiting posts of negative comments. Many companies have started to follow this concept in order to prohibit anonymity on their websites. For example, in the writing "Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt" Julie Zhuo discusses the issue of anonymity and how this problem has effected many

Furthermore, Boyd claims that people have a right to do what protects their well-being and says: “What’s at stake is people’s right to protect themselves, their right to actually maintain a form of control that gives them safety” According to Boyd, nobody has the right or authority to stop people from doing what protects them the most. Any action to stop people from protecting themselves is wrong and that’s exactly what the ban of anonymity calls for. Boyd holds the same idea as Stafford and Zhou that people need to be protected from these “trolls” on the internet but unlike the other authors, Boyd sees anonymity as the defensive measures that people take to protect themselves. Without anonymous accounts and names people at risk such as stalking victims, rape victims, defectors from suppressive governments, and company whistleblowers are left defenseless to people who have access to the internet and their identities and the intention to harm them. It is unreasonable to take a risk to implement something, not knowing if it will have any positive effect, but knowing it will definitely negatively effect many users of the internet. Boyd’s article explains that anonymity allows for all ideas to be fully expressed without being afraid of backlash from individuals that aim to harm you. This lack of

Hiding one’s identity is nothing new. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay authored The Federalist Papers in 1787 under the pseudonym Publius. The ability to communicate anonymously is viewed as part of our basic right to free speech . With the advent of computers and ease of access to the internet, becoming anonymous as never been easier, and is far more reaching than the colonial newspapers of 1787. For some this ease at which we can communicate anonymously is cause for concern. Although we are no longer hiding our identities to promote the ratification of the Constitution, being anonymous still plays a significant role in our society. Online anonymity grants anyone with an internet connection an unbiased voice, regardless of gender, race, or wealth. Without this freedom to online anonymity, many people would not feel free to express themselves or share sensitive information about themselves. In the case of whistleblowing, anonymity also promotes the release of information to help fight government corruption and oppression. Anonymity can also be used as a security measure and prevent unauthorized mining of personal information by not giving access to our real identities. While the ethics behind anonymity can be foggy, multiple ethical frameworks, including duty-based and just-consequentialism, can be used to add clarity to the topic. A duty-based framework stresses the role of duty and respect for persons, including one’s self. While a just-consequentialism

From that AOL software CD that arrived via snail mail, to those elaborate HTML backgrounds on Myspace, to today’s latest social media sites like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, the Internet has steadily been growing and influencing society for over twenty years now. This impact has further complicated the balance between privacy and free speech. At the core of this debate is how reputations are affected by rumors, gossip, and shaming across the internet. In his book, future of reputation, David Solove argues, while technologies are constantly changing, human nature remains steadfast. The law must meet the challenge to address these ever-changing technologies’ effect on one’s reputation and strive to protect the privacy while ensuring the freedom of speech.

Engagement in internet attacks is a disturbing way in which individuals seek attention at the cost of another person’s self worth. With the use of bullying to make others feel small, snark to increase their own self importance, and distortions of the truth to make things more “interesting”, this is a large issue that effects many lives in different ways. The internet has become a large part of most daily lives in the United States, according the United States census 74.8 % of households now have access to internet, compared to 17 years ago when only 18.2% of households. The number of houses with a device which has access to the internet is 78.9%.(U.S. Census Bureau, 2014) With

Online media should consider adding features that will allow more users to participate (Chung & Nah, 2009). Traditional audience feedback forums in the newspaper industry were heavily moderated and did not permit anonymity (Reader, 2012). Therefore, anonymity must be part of this research. Anyonymity allows for anyone to publish a comment in any manner on any topic (Reader, 2012). There are professional sites that embrace the idea of anonymous commenting because they state anonymity provides the publication and its readers with a full range of opinions (Sonderman, 2011). Conversly a number of publications have taken the opposite tact. The publications state they are against anonymity because anonymous commenters are often uncivil (Holchberg, 2014). Their argument is uncivil behavior in the comment sections keeps people from commenting because they do not want to interact with those who argue in an uncivil fashion. However, interactivity theory believe that an engaged audience will police themselves and anonymity would not drive people away from the site (Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1998). There are those who view their ability to comment online as a type of freedom (Reader, 2012). There are also those who believe that eliminating anonymity would stop legitimate dissent against powerful institutions (Reader, 2012).

The changes in American culture through the internet have generally been very extensive; however, the average American might not see that the changes have been exceptionally negative for the United States as a whole. Aside from the positive aspects that the internet made possible, such as easier access for education, the anonymity and privacy allotted to internet users in the United States plays a key role when it comes to the negative aspects arising in American culture. Anonymity creates a realm through the internet where the consequences of words, photos, videos, et cetera are typically overlooked. The level of anonymity that one possesses on the internet reduces the level of social regulation between four different types of communication online: full anonymity, pseudonymity, visual anonymity, and face-to-face (Keipi 1099). When one understands that social regulation roughly means one’s applied use of social norms, internet anonymity can be understood as a Pandora’s box that unintentionally depreciates what society values. Much like Pandora, allowing unregulated anonymity on the internet will continue to lead to greater issues that no one can easily erase. According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted by Lee Rainie and others, a majority of Americans greatly value personal privacy over transparency on the internet (1). Despite the fact that most value their privacy above other options, the solution to combating political polarization, ethnic discrimination, and online

Hate speech on the Internet is a growing problem for the United States and Japan because it is targeting individuals on the basis of personal characteristics. Brown (2017) argues that cyberhate has three different qualities: anonymity in the sense that individuals are not compelled to reveal aspects of their offline identity unless they wish to do so; invisibility there is a physical distance between speaker and audience; instantaneousness provides people with almost instantaneous publishing. The justification for promoting speech is founded on a concern for the facilitation of discourse democracy, while the rationale for preventing harm is based on a concern for human dignity.