The other day, opinionated made this comment in Colorado is the Shiznit's meta diary:
I survived, (barely) the pie fights
TR's were flying right and left, until they got rationed. I kept thinking how could one site, have so many ignorant, sexist, assholes, but I'm glad I stayed. There are good people here. But anonynimity [sic] does tend to bring out the worst in people.
To which I replied:
That's an idea that should be diaried.
I would postulate that anonymity also brings out the best in people.
My comment got 11 recs, so I figured it would be good to diary it since my diaries usually don't even get 11 clicks.
More past the crease.
I really want to focus on the social aspects of anonymity, or actually pseudonymity, but let me lay a foundation for anonymity first.
There are obviously many good reasons for anonymity on the net. First and foremost, of course, is safety. Second is free and unfettered opinion. Whistleblowing on both macro and micro levels is another. And, of course, it's constitutionally protected:
The Supreme Court has consistently held that anonymous and pseudonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment. In its most recent statement, McIntyre v. Ohio Campaign Commission,(21) the Court invalidated an Ohio ordinance requiring the authors of campaign leaflets to identify themselves.(22) The Mrs. McIntyre in the case had been fined for handing out anonymous leaflets during a local school board campaign.(23) The Court repeated what it had said in Talley: "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind."(24) It recognized that an author may have a variety of valid motives for shielding her identity:
The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible.(25)
Source: The Cato Institute [PDF]
Further, in striking down a Georgia law (H.B. 1630, an amendment to the state’s Computer Systems Protection Act, making it a misdemeanor for one "knowingly to transmit any data through a computer network [using] any individual name . . . to falsely identify the person . . . transmitting such data."34), the district court said:
"the statute’s prohibition of internet transmissions which ‘falsely identify’ the sender constitutes a presumptively invalid content based restriction" under McIntyre.(36)
The court concluded that the statute was vague and overbroad because it was "not drafted with the precision necessary for laws regulating speech. On its face, the act prohibits such protected speech as the use of false identification to avoid social ostracism, to prevent discrimination and harassment, and to protect privacy . . . a prohibition with well-recognized First Amendment problems."(37)
The preliminary injunction was later converted into a permanent one and the state of Georgia decided not to take an appeal, so the district court’s ruling became the final and definitive statement on H.B. 1630.
Despite this, wingnut Rep. Tim Couch (Idiot-KY)
has recently introduced legislation that would make anonymous comments online illegal. If it passes, the legislation would require that users register on a website prior to making comments.
This registration would require a user to use their real name, physical address and their email address; real names would also be used on the website in conjunction with the comment. If a website fails to comply with these requirements, they will face stiff penalties in the form of fines ranging from $500 - $1000 [per anonymous post!].
source
Obviously, as in most cases, a GOP congress critter wants to trample the Constitution and stifle people. He might want to note that Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin used pseudonyms, as did the authors of the Federalist Papers. But then again, probably not, since he is only interested in trying to score cheap political points.
All that aside, that's not really what I want to talk about. Often, when we consider the social ramifications of anonymity on the net, this is what we think about:
Image from Penny Arcade
Or we hear actor Chris Pine, who plays Captain Kirk in the new Star Trek, say this in GQ:
[Q.] Surely tiptoeing around the rabid fan base—calling him "Mr. Shatner" and all that—must get old?
[A.} The amount of dissection of the minutiae of this movie...I was blown away by the protectiveness. I’m definitely guilty of looking at the blogs, and I’m not a fan of the anonymity [of the Internet], how it allows people to just spew poisonous vitriol like vomit.
And, in truth, there's a lot of that going on. Just look in kos's mailbag. No doubt that anonymity can produce fuckwads by the tens of thousands.
But here at DKos, things are a little different. First of all, our FPer's true identities are all known as are many other Kossacks, mostly by their own choice. But even those of us who do not make our real names publicly available are pseudonymous rather than anonymous. That is, we have a "persona" so that our comments and diaries are part of a body of work and a reputation that the persona must answer for. This is less anonymous than sending kos a single hate-filled email. Karina Rigby said in a 1995 MIT paper,
Pseudonymity comes in useful in that it allows users to send mail [or post comments or diaries] to pseudonymous users in response to their mail or post. People are able to respond to emails [or comments or diaries] that they like or dislike or that they find offensive or disruptive. This makes the pseudonymous user more responsible for his or her actions than the completely anonymous user. They are still accountable for their actions on the net but are protected from "real world" damage.
Pseudonymity helps keep rudeness in check, as does community moderation in the form of tips, recs, and HR's. And of course, kos can exercise his veto power as he sees fit.
But what about my assertion that anonymity brings out the best in people? Here are a few of the social benefits I see.
First, we have diversity because of our pseudonymity. Because we are anonymous, we never judge one another on physical appearance. And because of that, what a motley crew we are! We are every age, every color, every nationality, every religion (or not!), every size, every shape, every income, every occupation, and every sexual orientation. There is nowhere else in my life that I can have such thought-provoking conversations with so many different kinds of people. I learn so much by seeing the world through diverse eyes. I don't get that as much outside of cyberspace.
Second, we can be vulnerable because of our pseudonymity. I am rather taciturn in real life, but, as you can see, I get downright chatty here. Part of that is because I don't have to worry about any of that superficial stuff. I have been misidentified as female on a few occasions here. I really love that. I don't have to be macho here. I can be really honest. I can cry like a baby when I read IGTNT (and I often do) and nobody knows. I can be a gruff, tough baseball umpire in the afternoon and an old softy on DKos at night.
Third, we can be generous because of our pseudonymity. We can say we are sorry without being too embarrassed. We can say we are wrong sometimes without losing our pride. We can help out fellow Kossacks in need without fear of being hounded for more and more.
Last, we can be effective because our pseudonymity has allowed us to establish a community. We can support each other and encourage each other. We can share our successes and whine about our setbacks and be assured a community is behind us. Without DKos, I might never have knocked on doors here in Indiana for Obama or sent donations to Dems in Alaska, Minnesota, Georgia, Washington, and North Carolina.
I would love to hear the thoughts of other Kossacks on the good and bad of anonymity/pseudonymity. I know we have some Kossack psychologists, and I'd love their take on this.