I did not start thinking about the consequences of this status until a few months ago, when YouTube proposed having their millions of users open up their profiles to the public, and using their actual names to post. This was met with immediate and massive resistance by the vast majority of their user base. Why, though? Well, as far as I can see, it means culpability. Comment sections on the internet are generally a no fly zone for me, as I know what is waiting for me there. Racist, bigoted and outright idiotic comments are a dime a dozen. All the fun would be sucked out of it if XxSwaGZiLlaxX had to actually post "fuck you faggot" as, say, Theo Wilson. The same for gaming consoles. Xbox Live would be a far tamer place, I think, if the entire user base had to use their actual names. Underage gamers, the landfills of verbal abuse shoveled down billions of ethernet cables daily, discriminatory emblems and such, all accredited to the people instead of the personas? Madness.
Mind you, I understand that the shield of anonymity has its uses. A person who would normally be easily identified and attacked, verbally, legally or even physically, can conduct their business privately with no fear. This helps millions of young people reach out for help for drug problems, sexual questions, mental illnesses and much more. Hell, one of the most instrumental documents making the case for American freedom from British rule was a pamphlet called 'Common Sense' written by Thomas Paine, but published "by an Englishman." I get it. So here we come to the grey area.
Anyone paying attention to the news for the past couple of years should know about the internet hacker activist group Anonymous. They are represented by men wearing Guy Fawkes masks, and as the name suggests, no one knows who they are. You can make the case that this makes them a more romantic idea, that the everyman can make a change, it could be anyone etc. Under the blanket of anonymity they have made it onto Time magazine's 100 most influential people list for 2012, exposed homophobic practices, publicized the names of the Westboro Baptist church members (those guys that tried to picket the funeral for the Sandy Hook children) and generally were e-vigilantes on a level that is usually hit only in movies. They are also breaking the law maybe once a minute with database violations and other hacking related crimes. Is anonymity their shield or sword? Would any of them be around if their names were fodder for the publicity machine? I doubt. Is that a bad thing? As of this post, I am still not sure.
Before I start dinner, I will leave you with this one. A new bill being put forth wants website admins to delete any comment posted by an anonymous account. Examine for yourselves.
While the lack of checks and balances worries me when it comes to the group Anonymous, it does make happy to see them take certain people to task. For example, Knightsec bringing so much attention to the Steubenville rape: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/01/the-lessons-of-steubenville.html
ReplyDeleteThe world is a less safe place for rapists that would have at one time been able to sweep cases under the rug. The world is less safe for people who would help them with their sweeping. There are eyes and ears everywhere, that may call attention to what they do and leak evidence to the public. I'm ok with that.
As far as youtube requiring my google account name to display, I'm not thrilled. Studies show that if a commenter has a feminine name or profile picture, they're more likely to be harassed. Youtube is kind of notorious for sort of commenters it has. I will probably comment even less now than what I have been for this reason. Also, the fact that my google account is my primary "adult account" (adult meaning the account I get bills and school stuff sent to, not the sexy variety), I just don't like it connected to my youtube stuff. I worry that someone could access my google calendar, or my emails, with enough know-how. Yes, they could always do that, but now with it connected to my youtube account, I just feel more vulnerable. If it does indeed help with trolling, then it will all be worth it, as I hate trolls. They waste time and make people stupid. Trolls suck so much, people are even beginning to study how and why they suck so much: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/you-idiot-course-trolls-comments-make-you-believe-science-less
This is a great topic. I like that there are people who are using their hacking skills to expose injustice rather than screwing over innocent people. If not for the ability for anonymity they wouldn't be able to do so. Look at Assange of WikiLeaks who is basically exiled because of the nature of WikiLeaks: exposing a lot of high-level injustices. These people are stepping on powerful toes and are risking a lot because governments and large agencies are brutal in trying to quiet them.
ReplyDeleteStupid people like trolls and racist bigots are going to be that way whether or not they have anonymity I think. If anonymity allows them more freedom to spew their vitriol then it's better than that stuff being kept in and naive me walking around thinking we're safely situated in a tolerant post-racial society. Thanks to them I know to watch my back.
I think the right to be anonymous online is important. We should not be forced into some sort of big-brother society where we must identify ourselves: name rank etc. in order to participate in the flow of information and thought.