Topic 2: Defending Anonymity through Multiple Online Personalities

When wrestling with the topic of online identity the question that debates most often revolve around is whether a policy of anonymity is preferable to online identification. As a politics student this question is one which has been central to studies around revolution, accountability and the protection of children. Personally I err on the side of multiple web personalities as this is allows for the best of anonymity while protecting against the worst.
The main reason anonymity is essential is to protect freedom of expression. Expression is a word which I use here in its broadest possible sense. As a libertarian I believe that an individual has a right to seek any (reasonable) material which they see fit, whether that’s controversial government leaks, communication with individuals that the state would not endorse or pornography. The first two points there are politically crucial; freedom of information and freedom of communication are tools of freedom and liberation. One needs to look no further than the Arab Spring to see why these are things we want to keep, and looking to China will show why these are things we don’t want to lose (if you want more information on this I wrote a full blog available here). As for pornography, although it may be a socially awkward topic, one can tell a lot from how a government navigates this tricky issue of free speech.
Anonymity allows for these activities to be participated in without individuals being tied to the negative consequences of doing so. On a less extreme note this could even be posting a controversial idea on a forum to spark conversation and debate. It all comes down to free speech and having one identity to deal with anonymous activities one wishes to pursue. However another identity is required.
With the grand positives of anonymity on the web come the petty, but hugely significant negatives. Free speech without consequence can lead to liberation, but on a day to day basis creates ‘trolling’, the practise of abusing individuals online with hateful communications. It’s something which can be both over and understated in significance depending on who is reporting on it, however bullying in whatever form must always be taken seriously. YouTubers such as boogie2988 have documented cases of trolls causing suicide, while the now infamous and tragic suicide of Amanda Todd made national news after being effectively bullied to death online.
There is a gulf between the worlds of the trolls and of freedom fighters. YouTube for example is arguably the hub of cyber-bullying, with commenters hiding behind fake names to spread aggression and hate where they see necessary, a desire which has recently seen them labelled as psychopaths and sadists by a new report from Canada. As reported by Masters (2011), the key sites such as Facebook and Google Plus (which is now linked to YouTube) has created an internet which is much more identity-orientated. Names will often appear next to YouTube comments, and as Masters observes, features such as Facebook Connect offer a fast alternative to new accounts and hence new pseudonyms.
Another option posed was by Google CEO Erick Schmidt who believes that children should be given an opportunity to rename themselves to essentially wipe their internet history. As reported here, Schmidt believes that with less anonymity the internet will eventually be a treasure trove of search history which, as anyone can attest to, would look really bad out of context. In interview circumstance for example, that could significantly harm life chances.
Is a renaming of every child in Britain necessary? I’d argue not. The solution to trolls and faults is education in schools and allowing individuals to grow into the web before committing content to their real name. By all means have their pseudonym known by family and individuals they should be accountable to, but keeping their record clean is a good idea if Schmidt is right about the future of the internet. And let’s face it, he’s the CEO of Google, he’s probably right.
As for the topic overall, I’m confident in my defence of anonymity. In countries suffering from illiberal oppression, anonymity has been at the core of dissidence in many revolutions across the Middle East and now Eastern Europe and that is a value which must be protected. Other than this, rights of expression such as accessing explicit content without the fear of negative repercussions is an issue of free speech and one which should also be defended. When someone buys a lads mag, it doesn’t end up on their CV. The internet should be no different. Plus with a more identity-centric internet growing by the day, hopefully a good-willed and troll free internet will come with it and the mistakes of the past are not replicated.
In conclusion having multiple web identities is a perfect, if piecemeal, solution to the issues faced by owning an identity online. Now let’s go and see how many of you disagree with me 