I agree with you 100%, the anonymity gives people incredible courage, but face to face people are more likely to be civil. But I think that is because the threat of physical violence is high if you said such hurtful things to other people.
The real life interactions are much more civil because of the fact that being an a*hole gets retribution from the person you are being an a*hole to or from the society.
Perfectly nice people turn into psychos when they interact with people online. Observe kids playing games in real life, they are very rarely as vulgar or sadistic as on online games.
A walk even in the most crowded places is much nicer experience that an anonymous online place.
Oh and yes, the very few cases where anonymity is useful are exactly that kind of cases(whistleblowing, journalism targeting powerful figures etc.). These are rarities and are valuable but %99 of the discussion on the internet are not about these and I suggested a mechanism for anonymity anyway.
The argument is that online anonymity itself also creates real-world consequences, such as character assassinations, harassment, and downright internet crime.
If "Civility" means "being nice to each other", why shouldn't we value it, in and of itself?
Yes, people are braver under anonymity. Over the Internet there are more anonymous readers who can access a public discussion and a poster's real identity-- thus more chance that one of these anonymous readers are crazy enough to cross the line and exploit their knowledge of the poster's identity to harass them in real life.
Before the Internet it would've been a lot more difficult to read all these dissenting opinions/discussions but also harder for a person to commit harassment. My entire point is that the Internet is a double edged sword (But im sure we all know that already). That said, the pros do outweigh the cons :).
I don't know if that's necessarily true. Look at Facebook - people say mean and vulgar things under their real name all the time, often complete with a picture of their own face. Anonymity can be a factor in the way we treat each other, but it doesn't tell us the whole story.
I think a big part of it is anonymity encourages people to let out the worst aspects of their personality. I think if a forum required people to use their real identities you would see much less objectionable contact (but probably also a lot less interesting ideas)
it is lack (or significantly lower risk) of pretty much any threat. In real life people with different opinions are punished in many ways, not just physical (is anything i'd say the pure physical punishment is probably among the least concerns). Being anonymous online (or hard to reach in some other way, like say residing abroad) allows at least some freedom of speech.
Saying controversial things while hiding behind anonymity isn't exactly what I call brave. People are People, meaning not being anonymous has a modulating influence on people's behavior and that is a good thing.
If you doubt this just descend into the comment section of any news article to see the vile stuff people post online because they are anonymous.
If anything I find people putting on a face more offline. Online, you can be yourself with far less consequences thanks to anonymity. Yes, this leads to some showing they are horrible people, but it lets others show vulnerable sides they are too scared to show face to face.
I think it's the other way round. Anonymity (or rather: the right to present different personas to different audiences and to give up a burned persona when you see fit) makes the internet a bearable place. It also allows people to make up their mind without standing in their own way, and disregard hurtful comments as trolling (which they often are). Facebook painfully shows that real name policies do not necessarily lead to more civil discussions, instead they facilitate ad hominems, and expose vulnerable groups to hate everywhere, as aspects of their identity can not be selectively hidden anymore. This even extends to their real lifes, with their names being publicly known. Now speech needs to be controlled, because people lost control of their personas and need to fight everywhere, instead of just when they choose to.
Pseudo-anonymity brings out the worst in people, rather. (Or: If there is no risk of being punched in the face or otherwise given a strong physical disincentive, then behavior tends to deteriorate.)
Anonymity or pseudonymity do, however, have benefits that should be considered before eliminating them. Whistleblowers and employees of companies being discussed are the two that come to mind immediately.
In these sort of arguments I don't really understand why civility in and of itself is valued. It only makes sense in a social situation that affords civility. For that you can make "giving up anonymity" opt-in, rather than opt-out (which is mostly what is being done a lot, from forums that force you to use FB accounts to tor users in various countries who have no easy way to opt-out of foregoing anonymity).
It is rather silly to quote civility when the alternative, the lack of anonymity, has terrible "real-world" consequences, as mentioned in the article.
the argument willfully ignores the many voices that are silenced in the name of shutting up trolls: activists living under authoritarian regimes, whistleblowers, victims of violence, abuse, and harassment, and anyone with an unpopular or dissenting point of view that can legitimately expect to be imprisoned, beat-up, or harassed for speaking out.
Can someone explain the rationale of placing civility ahead of the above consequences?
> I don't disagree that anonymity offers protection against situations like this, but bear in mind that anonymity is very much a factor in the lack of civil discourse online.
We might lose some civility but we also gain a lot of honesty which is absent everywhere else now due to PC culture. So the question is whether we prefer sometimes uncivilized but honest discussion or a civil veneer of what people really think.
Haha I remember that argument. The thought was anonymity made people horrible to each other online. Turns out people are horrible to each other online regardless.
Yes, but that needs to be balanced by the distorted form of reputation people get even when they are polite and thoughtful due to the lack of any emotional channel in text-based web forums. Add to that the fact that in real life, people have many sides to their personalities, which are inhibited or eccentuated in different contexts; but the impression the web gives of people lacks those contexts.
Then, consider the good that anonymity has allowed for; think of all the things people have able to speak out about anonymously which would have gone unsaid.
I don't disagree that anonymity offers protection against situations like this, but bear in mind that anonymity is very much a factor in the lack of civil discourse online. I'm not suggesting for a second that stripping anonymity is a solution to any of these problems, but personally I feel like I'm less likely to engage in the sort of behavior which might invite an angry mob while posting under my real name.
This post shows why anonymity on the internet is so important. Anonymous people don't have nothing to lose, and women and men that don't have nothing to lose are able to say the most brutal, socially unacceptable truths.
reply