Rough Draft

by talebm

The creation of the first computer dawned a new age of living: the Digital Age. Never before has technology so quickly developed at such a rapid rate. But change in society wouldn’t really be noticeable until the 1990’s when the internet became a free public amenity, with that comfort came a new concept: widespread anonymity. The use of anonymity on the Internet is a morally ambiguous one, does sacrificing anonymity also equate to the sacrifice of even more than that? And what is the government’s role on the Internet, if it has a role.

Jonathan Zittrain created this idea of generativity, which has become the essence of the Internet. In his novel The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, he describes it as “a system’s capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences”. The openness and unlimited characteristics of the Internet are part of what makes it generative – there is no limit to what people can do.

So, where does anonymity play a role in this aspect? Well, anonymity is just another aspect of generativity in many different aspects.

Zittrain argues that any adjustment to the Internet should be done with the least amount of harm to its generativity, but Bryan Choi raises the question of how to determine the least amount of harm. In his article “The Anonymous Internet”, Choi discusses the solution to Zittrain’s argument – limiting anonymity on the Internet. The question whether anonymity is beneficial or harmful to the Internet and by extension, the general public, is dependent on whose anonymity is involved.

“Yet, if we accept that some regulation is necessary, then preserving generativity requires a reduction in anonymity and, conversely, preserving anonymity requires a reduction in generativity. Thus, the fate of the generative Internet is inversely linked to how vigorously we choose to defend the anonymous Internet. Those who think generativity is the most important attribute of the Internet should be prepared to cede some anonymity. As long as anonymity remains inviolate, generativity will be the loser. That choice should be seen not as sacrificing liberty for security, but as prioritizing one liberty over another.”

It’s selfish to want the best of generativity and the best of anonymity. We embrace and protect the right to free speech and press, but we are quick to act when it’s defamation or libel, but we should know by now that things are never that simple and clean-cut. How do we try to attain the best results?

In their article “Why Do People Seek Anonymity on the Internet?”, Ruogu Kang, Stephanie Brown and Sara Kiesler presented their research which was set find answers to that simple questions. In short, their results showed that about 53 percent of the users in the study used the Internet anonymously for “illegal or malicious activites”. Largely, the study participants used anonymity to protect them from personal threat, but also when “seeking help or doing other activities might make them seem socially undesirable or needy”.

Someone may be anonymous on the Internet when voicing an unpopular opinion and the generativity of the Internet allows him or her to do so.

This is the initial idea behind allowing people to remain anonymous on the Internet and it’s why many people are against regulating it. In a way, it’s a platform where the public can check the government.

“The most highly touted uses of anonymity—such as the Federalist papers,” speech by persecuted groups, or whistleblowing — are instances of public advocacy and civic action…In other words, privacy focuses inward and seeks to keep the world “out,” while anonymity focuses outward and prevents the world from keeping ideas “in.” The very reason to invoke anonymity— rather than privacy—is to avoid repercussions for ideas or acts that one feels compelled to thrust into the public consciousness despite knowing that they may be unpopular.” (Choi 2013)

Let’s go back in time and think about anonymity before the Internet. Bear with me folks.

One of the main arguments for anonymity on the Internet is that it’s a place where ideas can be voiced without fearing the government and anyone in general. Before the Internet, and even computers, newspapers were the source of information. Before the First Amendment, freedom of speech and press didn’t exist. It would have been a risk publicly expressing dissenting opinions. Pieces, like the Federalist Papers, were written anonymously under a different pseudonym to avoid persecution while trying to influence and inform the general public about government matters, which at the time was the ratification of the Constitution.

The modern day equivalence of the Federalist Papers is WikiLeaks – concept-wise anyway. As the website seeks to reveal privileged and highly classified documents and secrets regarding companies and governments. Although we know the creator of WikiLeaks, what makes it anonymous is the their refusal to leak the source of their evidence. WikiLeaks has a much greater scale of anonymity and has greater consequences than the Federalist Papers in the sense that there’s more at risk, but in its essence they aim to do the same thing – make the government and/or companies accountable for their actions. But, how far are we willing to go?

Choi brings up an interesting point about anonymity. He says, “asking whether anonymity is good or bad is the wrong question, because our instincts change depending on whose anonymity is at issue”. An example of this would be Edward Snowden. After he leaked the documents regarding surveillance programs assigned by the government, it revealed that the government was fringing on the basic rights of its people. I don’t know what was more terrifying – the government essentially stalking its citizens or the amount of laws Snowden broke to leak this information.

David Davenport struggles with the idea of anonymity fringing on our basic freedoms to speech and press. In his article “Anonymity on the Internet: Why the Price May Be Too High?” he doesn’t believe that anonymity is the issue here – instead, it’s accountability.

“Distrusting a government accountable to the people is one thing, facilitating a government completely unaccountable is quite another…It was distrust of government that led to calls for anonymous communications as a means to ensure free speech. The end result of anonymity, however, plays right into governments hands and has little real impact in terms of free speech.”

Anonymity on the Internet isn’t just for the ordinary folk; I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that the government uses it, for whatever reason. I also wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the government is hiding information about us. Just take a look at the Snowden situation. Whatever the intentions of the government, are their actions justifiable, even if it means infringing on the rights of its people? Who’s accountable in this case – the government or its people?

In his article “Man-Computer Symbiosis”, J.C.R. Licklider discusses the relationship between man and his computer. His dreams eventually led to the modern Internet. Let’s take another trip down memory lane in regards to the progression of computers, but this time not so far back. It was the early 2000’s where we had dialup Internet and Internet browsers, like Google Chrome or Safari, didn’t exist. Instead, it was the dialup AOL. Oh, the good ol’ times. My point is that since then computers and the Internet have drastically improved and made using them more easy and efficient. Licklider does a good job of summing it up. He says:

“The capabilities of machines in this class are increasing almost daily. It is therefore hazardous to make general statements about capabilities of the class. Perhaps it is equally hazardous to make general statements about the capabilities of men.”

In the early times of the Internet, anonymity was a somewhat uncharted territory since everything was foreign and new. People were getting the hang of the computer and anonymity on the Internet wasn’t something they could’ve grasped that easily. Now, it’s almost become embedded in our society. The dreaded school days with our bullies started to change – now, they’re coming home with us.

Cyberbullying has become a digital phenomenon – not in the good way. Once a year in high school, they would hold a school-wide exposé about cyberbullying while some teachers touched on the subject in class as well. In middle school, it wasn’t such a huge problem that needed to be addressed. Where I’m getting at is that not many could’ve predicted this side of the Internet and more specifically anonymity on the Internet.

In this article from ‘The Guardian’, the author Tim Adams uses a term to help describe this situation – deindividuation. Psychologists define it as when “social norms are withdrawn because identity is concealed”. Has this happened?

There’s no denying that violent and sometimes disturbing remarks are made on the Internet, some anonymously, some under a pseudonym, and some even using their own identity. You don’t agree with me? Well, take a look at the comments section on a YouTube video or look at a celebrity Twitter page. Need I go on?

Before there was the wonderful world of the Internet, was there a platform where this rage and anger existed? Besides your traditional bully or spray painted messages, I can’t think of any. I’m not arguing that this behavior was started because of the Internet, but I believe that, yes, it has given people the platform to do so. With the right platform and an audience, anything can happen and that goes beyond just cyberbullying.

Oh, and yes, cyberbullying does falls under that 53 percent of users who seek anonymity with malicious intent.

In the 1970’s, Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg envisioned something that would make computers more efficient – the Dynabook. The Dynabook was the portable computer that still did everything a desktop did. Their original target audience was children who wanted to do something more than play with toys. Nowadays, it seems like children are born knowing what technology is. My two-year old nephew has been able to navigate an iPhone for a while now. He doesn’t understand it fully, but knows that certain buttons do certain things. He’s learned how to call and Facetime me and other family members. But, without technology he wouldn’t have been able to learn his alphabets, numbers, colors and so much more before he was even two-years old. When I was his age, I didn’t know my left foot from my right. This is what Kay and Goldberg set out to do before technology became such an important part of our day-to-day lives.

Kay and Goldberg knew they were making a statement by creating the Dynabook, but I’m not sure they knew how the public would perceive it. It surely became something that will be associated with that time period.

Everything we do and say is a reflection of no one else but us. And, in combination with the others, it becomes a reflection of our society.

Ted Nelson, the author of “Computer Lib/Dream Machines“, said this about media and Internet.
“Media today focus the impressions and ideas that in previous eras were conveyed by rituals, public gatherings, decrees, parades, behavior in public, mummer’ troupes . . . but actually every culture is a world of images. The chieftain in his palanquin, the shaman with his feathers and rattle, are telling us something about themselves and about the continuity of the society and position of the individuals in it.”

What does anonymity on the Internet say about our society? Anonymity for the sake of our rights and freedoms? Anonymity with ill intentions? Will the rage mentioned in Adams’ article become a greater part of society?

Nelson attempted to do something that computer experts have failed to do – explain the inner-workings of computers in layman’s terms. It’s not far fetching to claim that computers have become a necessity within the last decade. With how much people rely on computers is still not easily understood in terms of how it works. Let’s talk about this in terms of anonymity on the Internet. For some, the ability to clear one’s browsing history, private browsing, and even the deep web are a blessing. These aspects of the Internet give the public to ability to erase and hide their Internet activity. Just like that, with one click. Poof. One’s browsing history is erased. But, is it really? Can something be traced back to you even if you have used the incognito browsing option on Google Chrome? The answer is yes. Everything you’ve ever done on the Internet and even on your computer will always be there and are referred to as your digital footprint.

Hannah Montana was wrong in this case – you can’t have the best of both worlds. Everything comes at a cost, even our basic rights and freedoms. The cost of freedom of speech is defamation or libel; the cost of right to bare arms is shootings; the cost of the Internet and computers in general is cyberbullying, digital tracing and more. That doesn’t leave us with much, but there is something else still there. Going back to Zittrain’s argument, regulating the Internet and anonymity on the Internet comes at a cost – the cost being the essence and nature of what Internet is and what it provides for everyone.

This new age of the Internet has caused lots of questions to be posed about anonymity and social etiquette on the Internet, and the effect on society and conversely the government. Social abuse of this lovely new platform is rampant; cyber-bullying and cat-fishing is being threaded throughout the internet and solutions for that is not in the near future but what is certain is that society does not look as it once did and is bound for more transformation.