Anonymity Breeds Contempt
Mar 28th, 2008 by mark
There were two articles yesterday about anonymity online, and the potential good or bad that can result. Paul Stamatiou, a computational media senior at Georgia Tech, talked about the perils of anonymous users in social networks. He lists a couple of pros and cons:
Pros: No barriers to entry. If someone wants to get involved quickly, they don’t have to create an account. It’s just easier to be anonymous.
Cons: Other users don’t know who just interacted and give that interaction less credit. For example, if anonymous gives me a blog post suggestion via Skribit I might think of it as just another suggestion and I’ll get around to it eventually if it holds merit and if other users like it. Then again, if John Smith, a frequent commenter, gave me the same suggestion I would be more inclined to write that post as I have the sense that Mr. Smith is a dedicated reader and thus I tend to give his suggestion more credit.
However, I think this only scratches the surface of a larger, more insidious, problem with anonymous users online - malicious or slanderous allegations and accusations.
Ars Technica provided coverage of the increased scrutiny and legal attention the college-aimed JuicyCampus website is garnering. In JuicyCampus champions free speech, AGs claim it’s a fraud, Ars Technia reports,
For those who have not yet had the pleasure of coming across JuicyCampus, the site serves as a public forum for college students to anonymously gossip about others. As you might imagine, this has bred an explosion in malicious, accusatory, and otherwise not-nice postings—often naming gossip victims by full name and school. JuicyCampus has simultaneously become popular and the bane of many students’ existence, as they continue to flock to the site to see what new drama is being stirred up.
The legal issue the Attorney General in New Jersey is pursuing isn’t a free speech issue but rather one of
[...] violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud act through unconscionable commercial practices and misrepresentations to users [...].
The problem with JuicyCampus isn’t free speech, it is anonymity giving people carte blanche to say anything about anyone. It’s the classic, “Is it true that you’ve stopped beating your wife?” conundrum made worse by its occurrence in a medium which allows the entire world to voyeuristically participate.
Anonymity breeds an environment which allows people to be bullies with no consequence. School-yard bullies are careful to not terrorize others when the teacher is nearby; anonymity online allows people to say things they wouldn’t repeat in front of authority, or even their peers.
As with any form of bullying, education is perhaps the key to unlocking the problem and eliminating it from our society. Not education in terms of reading, writing, and arithmetic, but education in terms of recognizing other people, their boundaries, emotions, culture, and norms. American society and culture seems to delight in protecting abusive or malicious behavior saying that it is protected by free speech. While I certainly don’t want my ability to read, write, say, or listen to the thoughts of others curtailed, I do feel that we aren’t approaching the problem correctly.
An enlightend, educated society, which practiced tolerance and acceptance, probably wouldn’t participate in lowest common denominator behavior like JuicyCampus, making the need to defend it moot. Unfortunately, for those of us who live in the United States, lowest common denominator behavior and expectations seem to be the rule of the day, rather than the exception.
Mahatma Gandhi was asked once, what he thought of Western Civilization. He answered that it, “would be a good idea.” His words are truer every day.
Thank you for sharing your views. The pro of being able to get involved quickly as anonymous can lead to the ability to post thoughtlessly. I’ve made thoughtless annomus comments in the past that I find myself regretting latter. Non-anonymous posting adds accountability, prompting contemplation. Teresa Nielsen Hayden recently said “being more polite than you think should be necessary” (from http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/27/boing-boings-moderat.html). I can not not think of situation where it is apporiate to not take the time to consider others when crafting words.
Fabulous moderation policy! Thank you for the link. If Zanshin ever gets more than a handful of comments, I’ll have to look into some of their ideas. Especially the disemvoweling one.
On the subject of online anonymity, here’s one you might be interested in.
A journalist, Mary Spicuzza, decided to chase down and “out” a Wikipedia editor called Griot with whom her sister, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, had an online beef. She tried to track him down and expose him but after the article was published was forced to resign for violating journalistic ethics. You can read the whole story by going to this link (scroll to “Tawdry Tabloid Journalist”):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admini… ‘_noticeboard/IncidentArchive3 72#Attempted_Outing_of_Wikiped ia_Editor_User:Griot_by_Tawdry _Tabloid_Journalist
This is sort of the flip side of the anonymity question. What are the ethics of trying to “out” someone’s online persona?
An Open Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation
To Whom It May Concern:
I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source. I am none of the persons I am being accused of and do not suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as MPD. My attorney, Richard Rosenthal, has been supplied with these facts along with a request that all false claims, slanderous remarks and defaming content concerning me be removed promptly from the site. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Marie Spicuzza
Comment by Jeanne Marie Spicuzza — February 13, 2008 @ 04:04PM
I edited this story and I can assure you that Mary did not get fired for this story or any other. Mary decided to leave the paper to take a job with a local documentary filmmaker. She gave her notice before the Wikipedia story was published. She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister’s fights with Griot and her sister’s role is mentioned high up in our story. Bottom line: We stand by the story.
Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly — February 26, 2008 @ 01:55PM
User:Griot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
See block log • confirmed accounts • suspected socks • Checkuser request
Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers
Hey - this is interesting. We studied the Mary Spicuzza article in my journalism class. It was a very interesting discussion about whether Spicuzza should have or should have not been fired for using her newspaper’s resources to undertake a personal matter involving her sister. A textbook case, the professor said.