Both Citron and Solove ignore one of the most contentious aspects of the anonymity debate, an aspect interestingly identified at the outset of the Q&A. Whether or not anonymity is a right to internet users aside, it is a fact that anonymity is the central (perhaps most central) characteristic of the internet. While both readings address the gravity of any decision that might be made on this subject, neither reading gives proper consideration to the seemingly tangential ramifications of limiting anonymity on the Internet. Our behavior online is informed by the pretense of anonymity whether we are writing defamatory comments about our teachers, or visiting websites from our childhood (I may or may not have been a Neopets user when I was 9). We cannot be so myopic in our analysis of this issue to suppose that restricting anonymity will only affect our free speech. That is to say, the infringement of free speech is notably more horrifying than many of the other repercussions, but as we have noted time and time again, the Internet is home to an incredible pastiche of activities.
I agree with Alex that one of the largest holes in Citron’s argument is the ambiguity of “real-world” harm. Interestingly, this seems to bring us back to the ambiguity of “material” destructiveness we struggled with last class. David’s argument for online IDs may be an interesting consideration, but with this particular issue (the issue of anonymity) we (unfortunately) must look to the plausibility or possibilities of actual implementation. We cannot simply decide that online IDs are necessary, or even that anonymity must be curbed, and then look towards methods of implementation that wont egregiously affect our civil rights. Until we are certain of the exact mode of implementation we will use, and, more importantly, of the transformation incurred by the Internet landscape, we cannot make any decisions.
If we, properly, regard anonymity as extending beyond what we say or write on the internet to what we do on the internet, how can we assume that the non-anonymous internet will hold any resemblance to the one we use now?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nick, I agree with both you and Alex that a hole in Citron's argument is that she does not clarify what the "real-world" harms of anonymity on the Internet are. She does not provide statistics explaining how harmful, or how many people, have been harassed by cyber mobs. She does not provide statistics explaining the "real-life" implications of harassment on the Internet. Instead, she only offers anecdotes about experiences people have had
ReplyDeleteHowever, it might be worthwhile to point out that she simply does not have statistics for "real-life" implications of anonymity for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the Internet is still relatively new and perhaps harassment cases have not reached a large enough number to be worthy of numerical statistics. Secondly, it is extremely possible that people have been implicated in the"real-world" but have not been able to voice their experiences because they have been intimidated by cyber mobs to stop using the Internet.
My answer to your proposed question is that curbing anonymity on the Internet will not hold a resemblance to the Internet we use now. Moreover, I believe Solove and Citron are not arguing to keep the Internet as it is. They are asking for change.
I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the viewpoint I am about to present, but I am saying it simply to answer your question from what I imagine would be Citron's response to your question. Here it is: "A non-anonymous internet would not hold any resemblance to the Internet we use now, just as life in the United States after the Civil Rights movement does not hold any resemblance to life in the United States before the Civil Rights movement".
It is a controversial statement, and without a doubt imperfect. However, I believe Citron would make an argument along those lines.
Of course it easy to argue that, because the internet as it exists right now is an anonymous institution, it must necessarily remain this way for all time. I disagree. Anonymity works in analog environments because there is someone acting as a filter who decides whether the anonymous speech is worth publicizing. When it comes to the internet, on the other hand, there is usually no such filter. Any yahoo with an internet connection has a global soapbox from which to spread lies and hateful messages. The onus is then on defamed individuals, as Ben has told us this week, to get the host site to remove offensive comments. What's more, there is nothing to prevent the offender to repost his comments, or post similar ones, with little fear of his identity being revealed. This need not be the case. It is indicative of a general decline in our national character that we must resort to anonymity in order to feel comfortable saying what we think. An Internet ID system would reverse this trend. Of course, I do not expect this measure to be enacted any time soon. But I wholeheartedly disagree with Nick's sentiment that simply because anonymity is the norm on the Web it should be so. I, for one, would like to see more people stand by their words. And I do not fear the consequences that you think will necessarily result as much as you seem to.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the idea that "[i]t is indicative of a general decline in our national character that we must resort to anonymity in order to feel comfortable saying what we think" -- anonymous speech has been central to our national dialogue since the founding of our republic. Anonymity allows us to try different ideas on for size without fearing judgment by our community or persecution by our government. In an ideal world, perhaps, we would all speak with attribution; but we aren't in an ideal world, and its not clear to me that we ever were....
ReplyDeleteFair enough, Anjali, that national character comment was a little overblown. It is true that, historically, analog anonymity has moved public discourse forward in positive ways. Internet anonymity has this potential as well, but this is not the manner in which it is most often used, in my opinion. As we discussed in class, anonymity emboldens speakers, which can intensify both positive and negative speech acts. Such intensification can prove helpful, but also extremely hurtful. It is on this grounds most of all that I object to anonymity. Human nature is such that I prefer not to see what people do when they think no one is watching. Of course, the anonymous internet is a reality and I do not expect it will be changed any time soon. I just thought it would be worthwhile to use the blog to engage (unanonymously, I might add) with the marketplace of ideas, so to speak, and provide an alternative view to the one most of my fellow bloggers were trending towards.
ReplyDeleteBest,
David