Anonymity: the good, the bad, and the critical

Abstract

Anonymity on the internet is a contentious issue of great debate and has been since the inception of the internet. Constitutional rights and charters are being called into question in Canadian and American courtrooms, often siding with freedom of speech over full disclosure. However, the argument frequently depends on the nature and motivation of the desired anonymity. Here we will explore how anonymity is defined in a digital world and the positive and negative implications it bares on digital content.

Treatment

The term anonymity, “derived from the Greek anonymia, meaning without a “name” or “namelessness.”” is defined as the state of being anonymous (Wikipedia contributors, 2011). The long standing history of anonymity in media has oftentimes served a political purpose or acted as a safeguard against persecution, however, at the dawn of a digital era the right to anonymity afforded to Canadians and Americans alike has been called into question. With the launch of platforms like Google+, which requires real names as opposed to pseudonyms, there appears to be a fundamental shift occurring in the quest for honesty in the digital plain. Wired magazine, in its October 2011 issue, has an article entitled, “How Google got social networking right (finally)” (Levy) where he discusses how this platform is what people want. Yet, “persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.” (Rowland, 2003) Given that “anonymity and pseudonymity are built into the architecture of the Net”, (Wallace, 1999) the question remains: how do you strike a balance between anonymity and responsibility? And if so, how do we gauge online content in an age of anonymity?

One aspect of the digital plain that encourages theoretical discourse is the application of social media platforms in public occurrences.  Take, for example, the recent strike in the spring of 2011 at Vancouver Island University (VIU). The University had a Facebook page that it uses on a regular basis for marketing purposed. In addition the Faulty Association (VIUFA), which was the striking party, created its own Facebook page. While respectful and informative debates occurred and were encouraged, incidences of defamatory and harassing comments became prevalent. One student went so far as to create four different pseudonyms to facilitate contrived conversations. A single individual and a single department were targeted online which then escalated to threatening emails and phone calls. An interesting experience was noted by the single individual targeted: despite the numerous opportunities to engage in face to face communication with her, no single attack occurred outside of a distanced environment. When I had the opportunity to speak with a former professor and now colleague who, during the strike, claimed that individuals in the department that I work in were illiterate and incompetent; he was very apathetic about the situation. It wasn’t until I verbally connected that he was in fact calling me, a former student, illiterate and incompetent that he exhibited remorse and connected his defamation to individual people with professional reputations. Had I not been standing in front of him, would that have been the case? I don’t believe so. When, unchallenged, we are unwilling to take responsibility for our actions in the digital plain, how reliable does our academic discourse become in the same realm? A similar situation occurred in Tacoma, Washington in 2004 when a group of ethnically identified youths were attacking middle to old age white males and eventually brutally murdered an elderly man. When the local news agencies opened the conversation to the public in a fully anonymous format, racist and hateful messages dominated the conversation. Yet, when the same community was given the opportunity for a public, open forum the comments focused on solutions and understanding with minimal, civil criticisms. (Coffey and Woolworth, 2004) With so wide of a disconnect between the public face and the digital façade, the questioning of the rights of anonymity starts to sound more legitimate.  

This leads to the idea of implementing a form of a gatekeeper in the digital realm, which has been suggested as a solution to discourage the above mentioned incidents and the prevalence of anonymity. One argument is that imposing free speech on the internet without a gatekeeper is dangerous however that argument “presupposes that anonymous speech is acceptable only if prescribed by an informed elite”. (Wallace, 1999) Yes, the internet is dangerous without a gatekeeper. In searching for valid, reliable content on the internet, as with any other media platform, do we not already look to the informed elite to provide such content just as we look to peer reviewed articles for data? In the organized chaos that is the World Wide Web we reach for toolboxes (Pash, 2011; Shermer, 2009) and website registrations (e.g. easywhois.com) to help us weed out the biased and uninformed content but this is getting harder and harder to do.     

On the other hand, where anonymity is a draw to the augmented reality available to those engaging in the internet world, the quest for realism becomes an exercise in critical thinking for those unplugged from the anonymous realm. It also becomes a danger for the predatory few who will take advantage of this naïveté. Here is where the great debates are occurring in our judicial systems; both American and Canadian alike. Both the First Amendment in the Constitution of the United States and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom have been upheld in free speech cases (Christopherson, 2006), however, free speech does not negate criminal activity. In their publication of on Stalking, Criminal Harassment and Cyberbullying, the BC branch of the Canadian Bar Association states that, “Cyberbullying is a type of harassment using new technology. Whether it is criminal harassment depends on the facts of a case. Cyberbullies use social media (such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube), blogs, texting, instant messaging, and other internet avenues to engage in deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour intended to harm, embarrass, or slander someone. Although their work is public, cyberbullies are anonymous and it is often harder to identify and stop them.” (Stalking, 2011) Harassment is a criminal act, as is defamation, and yet social media platforms run rampant with it. How does one gauge friend or foe? Similarly, how does one gauge valid content verses personal opinion? Legitimate platforms versus facades developed as smokescreens for racist or ignorant propaganda? Where high school and undergraduate projects (such as Anonymity Project) are as good as, if not better that professional digital content, it is getting harder and harder to determine. This is particularly evident where the very definition of friend becomes an online, anonymous community like Postsecret that forms support networks often acting as crisis intervention. As stated earlier, the positive and negative aspects of anonymity are highly dependent on the implications it bares on the digital content. The most important question becomes how do individual cases of anonymity affect the end product of what I am engaging with, be it social media or an in-depth, academic search for data. We become our own peer reviewers tainted by the potential for the worst that the internet has to offer, yet invigorated by such projects as itgetsbetter.org.   

Conclusion

There is clear evidence to support the need for anonymity. In the case of Postsecret, it saves lives. In the case of political oppression, it topples governments. Yet for some, anonymity on the internet allows for an open forum limited only by one’s own personal aspirations – positive or negative. There is a great potential for as much good as there is bad on the internet and everything in between. Knowledge is power, and knowing the woven threads that exist concerning anonymity on the internet will hopefully empower readers to recognize that they have the power to determine its place. Being anonymous can help just as much as it can hinder, but that depends on us.

Sources

Christopherson, K. (2006). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in internet social interactions: on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, DOI: 10.1061/j.chb.2006.09.001

Coffey, B., & Woolworth, S. (2004) Destroy the scum, and then neuter their families: the web forum as a vehicle for community discourse? The Social Science Journal, 41, 1-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.soscij.2003.10.001    http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.viu.ca/science/article/pii/S0362331903000922

Levy, S. (2011, October). Inside Google+. Wired, 158-161.

Pash, A. (2011).  How to identify and avoid spreading misinformation, myths, and urban uegends on the internet. Retrieved from http://lifehacker.com/5798308/how-to-identify-and-avoid-spreading-misinformation-myths-and-urban-legends-on-the-internet

Rowland, D. (2003). Privacy, freedom of expression and cyberSLAPPs: fostering anonymity on the internet? . International Review of Law Computers & Technology, 17(3), 303-312. DOI: 10.1080/1360086032000174397

Shermer, M. (2009) Boloney detection kit. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science Upper Branch Productions. Retrieved from http://www.committedsardine.com/blogpost.cfm?blogID=181

Stalking, criminal harassment and cyberbullying . (2011, January). Retrieved from http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/criminal/206.aspx

Wallace, J. (1999). Nameless in cyberspace: anonymity on the internet . CATO Breifing Papers , 54, Retrieved from http://www.cato.org//pubs/briefs/bp54.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity

Wikipedia contributors. (2011). Anonymity. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity

Web Bias: Says who?

Abstract

How do you decide what is accurate and what is false on the internet? How do you determine who is being honest and presenting accurate information?  What makes them credible? In evaluating web content it is important to understand there are no absolute answers; some content is good, some is great, and some is insupportable. There are tools available to help us evaluate this content and we must build our own toolbox to filter the mass of content available on the internet. 

Treatment

In the 2003 film Mona Lisa Smile starring Julia Roberts, there is a particular scene where she challenges them with the question of, “what is art?” (see clip). Her goal is to get them to go beyond what is written in a text book and to really question what it is that makes good art. On a larger scale, the sea of information available on the web must be treated in a similar way.

When evaluating web content it is important to be skeptical and recognize that there is not a set of information out there that is 100% honest; there is no website of absolute truths. What is available will fit somewhere along a sliding scale from  realistic, honest, and scientifically sound to absolute slander, bias, and prejudice. (Harris, 2010)  This does not mean that, for the author, the information presented isn’t true in their mind. One must look at the motivations of the author and the corroborative quality of the information to determine the legitimacy for their own purpose. An author who writes a website on the history of Martin Luther King from the perspective of white supremacy is presenting their view of the world as fact. From a scientific point of view this is unreliable and inaccurate; however if you hold similar views as the author this would be a reliable site. It is important to be cognizant of the author as well as the editors of web content to determine where the information may fit along the scale of truth.

 Additionally, we can no longer judge a book by its cover – high school students are capable of putting a website together that can have the appearance of a legitimate company or organization and that usually has a high quality of aesthetic composition which often supports the legitimacy of the site. (Jost, 2008, p. 631) Given this consideration and those addressed above, how does a researcher gauge the quality of information on the internet?

Using a combined approach of the tools and resources available will help to determine if what is being presented is, in fact, quality information. Examples of these tools and resources are outlined in sources such as Evaluating Internet Research Sources on virtualsalt.com (Harris, 2010);   easywhoisit.com; How to Identify and Avoid Spreading Misinformation, Myths, and Urban Legends on the Internet on lifehacker.com (Pash, 2011); and Michael Shermer’s Boloney Detection kit (2009). Each of these resources emphasise the importance of a balanced, skeptical approach. The most comprehensive yet simplified example of an evaluation tool is Richard Harris’s Summary of the CARS Checklist for Research Source Evaluation in his article on virtualsalt.com.

Summary of the CARS Checklist for Research Source Evaluation
 

Credibility	trustworthy source, author’s credentials, evidence of quality control, known or respected authority, organizational support. Goal: an authoritative source, a source that supplies some good evidence that allows you to trust it.
Accuracy	up to date, factual, detailed, exact, comprehensive, audience and purpose reflect intentions of completeness and accuracy. Goal: a source that is correct today (not yesterday), a source that gives the whole truth.
Reasonableness	fair, balanced, objective, reasoned, no conflict of interest, absence of fallacies or slanted tone. Goal: a source that engages the subject thoughtfully and reasonably, concerned with the truth.
Support	listed sources, contact information, available corroboration, claims supported, documentation supplied. Goal: a source that provides convincing evidence for the claims made, a source you can triangulate (find at least two other sources that support it).

( Harris, 2010)

Conclusion

There is a vast array of information available on the internet. When searching for legitimate, accurate information, it is important to recognize that the reliability of what is available can be placed somewhere in a sliding scale between truth and fallacy. The role of a researcher is to know and understand what tools and resources can be accessed online, tangibly, and as a critical thinker, to evaluate information to determine its legitimacy.  

Resources

Harris, R. (2010) Evaluating Internet Research Sources. Retrieved from http://virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm

Jost, K. (2008). Internet accuracy: Is information on the web reliable?. CQ Researcher, 18 (27), 627-648

Pash, A. (2011).  How to Identify and Avoid Spreading Misinformation, Myths, and Urban Legends on the Internet. Retrieved from http://lifehacker.com/5798308/how-to-identify-and-avoid-spreading-misinformation-myths-and-urban-legends-on-the-internet

Shermer, M. (2009) Boloney Detection Kit. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science Upper Branch Productions. Retrieved from http://www.committedsardine.com/blogpost.cfm?blogID=181

 (2003). Mona Lisa Smile. [WebVideo]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2RqJIXFpYw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Social Media and Generation Me

Social Media, in the last ten years, has changed the face of communication. We BBM instead of calling; we Facebook instead of meeting; and we post photos on Flicker instead of getting together for an evening to pass around the photo album. So what is it about Social Media that brings millions, if not billions, to its digital doorstep instead of to each other’s front doors in the tangible world? Where we once gathered in pool halls and local community centers, we now gather on Facebook and Match.com.


Social Media is defined on Wikipedia as “the use of web-based and mobile technologies to turn communication into an interactive dialogue. . . . media for social interaction, as a superset beyond social communication.” (para. 1, 2011) This medium has generated a whole new language of communication that must be embraced and adopted to continue to reach the Me generation of today. (For a description of the characteristics of the Me generation, visit http://classact.prblogs.org/2007/06/01/10-characteristics-of-generation-me/.) As Clay Shirky claims in his Web 2.0 keynote address in 2008, there is a cognitive surplus where free time in our everyday lives that has previously been filled by countless hours of meaningless television, is now being consumed by participation in web based interactions or social media. In addition, I believe that the digital tools that are increasing in their efficiencies on a daily basis are enabling Generation Me to be even more consumed by the social media that they engage in. This is the world that they live in: given the choice they would most likely choose the digital world over the tangible world.


As a marketer attempting to target this generation and an instructor attempting to teach them, interacting effectively in the social media world and speaking the language of the digital plain is integral to remaining authentic and gaining the trust of Generation Me. Erik Qualman’s book Socialnomics sheds light on the reality of the communication gap that exists for anyone targeting the Me generation. He claims that, “Social media is the new inbox: Younger generations find email antiquated and passé.” (2011) Qualman then goes on to say that, “The interpersonal communication skills of Generations Y and Z have been retarded by reliance on social media tools that aren’t face-to-face or verbal.” (2011) The disconnect that online communication has from the individual that it is aimed at is astounding; the fact that cyber bullying has become an issue for adults and children alike is a testament to that. This becomes compounded for a generation of youth who have grown up with a sense of entitlement and a fear of personal conflict. What was once said in the school yard and passed as notes in the classroom is now posted on Facebook for all to see. There is no lunchtime monitor to catch you there – yet.

The Conversation Prism

The comfort with the digital world and the cognitive surplus described above has led to an explosion of digital platforms through which the world can engage its global community. Brian Solis and Jesse Thomas have created a model called The Conversation Prism “that helps chart online conversations between the people that populate communities as well as the networks that connect the Social Web.” (2008) With so many options out there how do we know which ones to use for what and when? I think that it is fairly safe claim to say that Generation Me is likely the best consortium to answer this question. In my job, it relates to the question of the end goal. Individuals engaging in the digital plain are generally there for a particular reason – if you can connect that reason to your goal then that platform may be an appropriate tool to be utilized. The Conversation Prism is a great place to start in asking this question as it groups social media platforms by functionality. Perhaps this is one answer to the question of why we gather here: there are so many options for communication tools that can match the need of the individual. But in the grand tradition of the chicken and the egg, which came first: the platforms to fill a growing need or the need that facilitated the evolution of the platforms?

So what is the key take-away from all of this: a question. Is it possible to answer the question posed earlier about the draw to social media? Not tonight. Identifying who can answer that question is a whole other challenge in and of itself.

http://www.markevanstech.com/2010/06/28/whats-a-social-media-consultant/

Qualman, E. (2011). Socialnomics [Kindle Library].Retrieved from Kindle Library on Amazon.com  

Shirky,C.  (2008). Web 2.0 Expo SF 2008: Clay Shirky [Video File]. Retrieved from http://blip.tv/web2expo/web-2-0-expo-sf-2008-clay-shirky-862384

Social Media. (2011) Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media  

Solis, B. (2008, August 5). Introducing The Conversation Prism [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.briansolis.com/2008/08/introducing-conversation-prism/

A Definition of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is not a paint by numbers, fill in the blanks, step by step process; it is the experiential engagement with one’s own ability to analyze, criticize and synthesize their interactions with the world around them both tangibly and intangibly. One key element to consider in the process of analysis is the ethical and cultural filters through which we see the world. This allows us the ability to criticise in a fair and subjective way resulting in a synthesis that we can present with reasonable honesty.

Let us take for example the idea that Botticelli is the greatest artist of the Renaissance; despite the fact that there are many who would vehemently disagree. Of the great Renaissance painters he is often not remembered with the notoriety of Michealangelo, daVinci, and Raphael. However, if the argument were to be made that his work translates with more relevance to the modern world and fits a contemporary mold in a way that the other three cannot, does this lend credit to the prior claim? The seemingly obvious answer is: it depends. What is the frame of reference? Through which lenses is the scrutinizer looking? Am I culturally biased? Am I ethically biased? The Wikipedia entry on Critical Thinking, in exploring the concept that various disciplines can take on augmented forms of this thought process, claims that the universal application “requires a process of reflective contextualization.” What is the context within which this claim is situating itself?

Once an understanding of this is articulated, self-reflection is required to determine the subjectivity. The main question to ask is what distinguishes theory from opinion; at what point in a thought process does it go from thought to critical thinking? If the cultural biases in previous assessments have indicated a predisposition for art that has been seen with Mr. Beans face on it, then in assessing that cultural bias the theory can be easily as an opinion. However, consider a situation where the theory is proposed by someone with red hair. Given that Botticelli featured Simonetta with her fiery locks in his most famous works, is this a bias that one would admit to without serious criticism. In following a logical thought process, consider what the sound arguments that can be made for an argument that minimal ethical and cultural biases are. In the article Critical Thinking in Everyday Life: 9 Strategies, one of the strategies listed suggests that you ‘check your ego at the door’.  Another suggests that you “Get in touch with your emotions” in order to understand where they interfere with your ability to see the ‘forest for the trees’. (Paul & Elder, 2001) Theoretical analysis is a personal experience; one that requires the ability to distance appropriate thoughts from selfish thoughts to be done well.

Finally, the ability to synthesize the resulting theory in an honest format that is accessible to the intended audience is key. As Aristotle said in book six of his Nicomachean Ethics (trans. 1962), “For whomever produces something, produces it for an end.” (p. 149) In creating theory, there is a goal to package the results put that product out into the world for use and application. What is also important to keep in mind is that reaching a conclusion in the process does not mean that it is a full-stop finality. What is truth may be myth tomorrow. Aristotle recognized this over 2,500 years ago. The argument can be made that, based on his applicability to modern context, Botticelli exceeds all other Renaissance painters; when modern context changes, the ability to make this particular argument would change as well.  

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2001). Modified from the book by Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2001). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/sts-ct-everyday-life.cfm

Critical Thinking. (2011, August 27). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking 

The Divine Comedy

The Divine Comedy, a set on Flickr.

Paradiso

Paradiso, a set on Flickr.