The Great Anonymity Debate
Over the past decade online anonymity has become a major problem all over the world. When internet users are anonymous they tend to say and do things they wouldn’t do face to face. They deliberately say or post offensive or provocative with the intention of upsetting or harming someone. This has been an ongoing issue for quite a few years now and people have formed strong opinions regarding online anonymity. Some people believe that online anonymity should be allowed because it protects a person’s identity while allowing them to freely express themselves. Others are in between and see online anonymity as a privilege that should be heavily regulated. Some people feel very strongly that people wouldn’t say many of the horrible things if they weren’t anonymous, so it should just be completely banned. In my paper I will explore and analyze three different articles that address each position of anonymity. I will explore the strengths/ weaknesses and effectiveness of each article.
The first article “Real Names” written by Danah Boyd a social media scholar and youth researcher argues that anonymity should be protected and allowed. She believes that “real name” policies aren’t improving issues they are an abuse of power over vulnerable people. She claims that anonymity is necessary because it allows people to hide their identity for personal privacy but most importantly safety reasons. She uses about ten quotes from different blog posts as examples to express the importance of remaining anonymous. For example one quote says, “As a former victim of stalking that impacted my family I’ve used [my nickname] online for about 7 years”. This example clearly shows that in some cases it can be necessary for people to remain anonymous because their safety as well as the safety of their loved ones is in jeopardy. Another example is, “I enjoy being part of a global and open conversation, but I don’t wish for my opinions to offend conservation and religious people I know or I am related to. Also I don’t want my husbands Govt career impacted by his opinionated wife, or for his staff to feel in any way uncomfortable because of my views”. This quote shows that some people use anonymity to protect their privacy when expressing controversial opinions. It also brings up the idea that people use anonymity to protect their jobs or their loved ones jobs by disassociating their names with their opinions.
Boyd also claims that anonymity can often save reputations. She explains if someone uses their real name on social media websites like Myspace and Facebook then everything they post remains stuck under their name, never to be deleted. This can then tarnish their reputation or future. She used an example of an African American male from South Central LA who applied for an Ivy league college and wrote an essay explaining how he wanted to leave the gang-ridden area. However the admissions officers found his Myspace which contained gang insignia causing them to question his acceptance. This student was trying to move on from his gang related past but couldn’t because of his real name on social media. Boyd used this example to show that people’s reputation can be tarnished due to using real names on social media instead of being anonymous. Boyd’s main objective is to show her audience that online anonymity is needed in society for the safety and deserved privacy of internet users.
Although Boyd makes a good argument she fails to address the negative effects of anonymity and then possibly refute them. I think failing to mention the negative effects and acting as if there weren’t any hurt her argument as a whole because it shows that she is not able to acknowledge the downside to anonymity. She doesn’t mention that sometimes people can take advantage of anonymity and use it to verbally bully others without being held accountable. Boyd only seems to focus on the fact that anonymity protects victims but doesn’t acknowledge that it can create bullies.
The second opinion is that anonymity should be allowed but restricted and regulated……
The third article, “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt” by Julie Zhou talks about how anonymity leads to bullying therefore it should just be completely banned. She claims that anonymity invites unethical behavior because people can hide who they are. Zhou believes that trolling has been a huge issue for online communities. She describes trolling as, “the act of posting inflammatory, derogatory or provocative messages in public forums” (Zhou). It is a way of anonymously victimize innocent people without considering how it affecting them. She uses a very disturbing example of an 18-year-old girl named Nicole Catsouras who died in a car crash. Days later trolls put pictures of her body on the internet for everyone to see and they sent photos and fake tribute pages to her parents, tutoring them. Zhou uses this example to really show her audience how heartless these trollers can be because they won’t get caught. She also uses it to evoke emotion in her audience hoping that it will get them to see that banning anonymity is necessary because it will rid the internet of trollers.
ADD COUNTERARGUMENT REBUTTAL
The three different arguments have many strengths and weaknesses. Allowing anonymity can protect identities but also invite trolling and other unethical behavior but completely banning it can take away people’s rights to privacy. And putting restrictions on anonymity might not always prevent things like trolling from happening but it may gradually slow it down. I think that meeting in the middle and focusing on regulating and restricting anonymity is the best solution. It will hopefully teach people that they can express their personal opinions anonymously but refrain from using it anonymity to deliberately hurt others.
mlavellecom 