In today’s Sunday Times Culture magazine, Bryan Appleyard poses the question Will the web be the death of civilisation? It’s a slightly meandering article, but there’s some food for thought on the qualities of anonymity and identity.
Appleward starts of by refreshingly acknowledging the ‘enormous interactivity – or “user-generated content”’ of Web 2.0. There-on in, much of the article quotes journalists and commenters who seem threatened by mass amateurisation, and who tar the ‘blogosphere’ with one huge brush as being journalistically parasitic, vitriolic and aggressive. Whether or not these thoughts are also Appleyard’s view, it does annoy me when so many of these biased, condescending and generalised opinions appear in mainstream media.
That said, as we know, some blogs are vitriolic and aggressive. These are easily avoided (unless you happen to be the target). But blog comments, including those on sites such as Digg, remain a problem. In his final paragraphs, Appleyard offers some sage advice for the future of the Web:
All western – not just scientific – wisdom is based on identity. Advocates and their critics can be identified and their ideas formally tested. [...] Freedom has its uses. I’m a blogger and I can say what I like. But, in the end, Web 2.0 will only be good for us if, somehow, it succeeds in evolving towards an identity-based discourse. All is else is mere anarchy.
The anonymity afforded by the Web is clearly vital, however identity is an important factor in order to have open, honest discussion.
Tomek wrote:
I really enjoyed reading all of your posts. It’s interesting to read ideas, and observations from someone else’s point
of view… makes you think more. Keep up the good work. Greetings
pauldwaite wrote:
A few months ago on Radio 4 I heard a horribly condescending chap discussing Wikipedia. In his view, you couldn’t make a judgment on the reliability of the content because there was no established media organisation (e.g. a newspaper) behind it. Fear of the amateur again, I believe.
Given some of the innaccurate, misleading, sensationalist nonsense that appears in every single newspaper in this country, I’m highly skeptical of the idea that the fact that “it’s in a newspaper” is an indicatorof quality.
Identity is one factor helping in discourse, but the main thing anyone needs to do when evaluating written ideas is read them, and think about them. Is it reasoned? Does it cite sources of evidence for its assumptions? You need to do this whether it’s in a newspaper or a blog, whether it’s anonymous or bylined.
Nate Klaiber wrote:
Well, I must say that I am guilty of some ‘aggressive’ posts – but they were never with the sense of anonymity that I wrote them. In fact, some people were personally contacted regarding them. I don’t think all ‘aggressive’ posts are bad, some have a strong foundation (Roger Johansson comes to mind – he is very aggressive, and mostly true in his posts).
So, I understand there are some out there who are trying to hide behind the Internet/computer while they say the things they say, but some are rooted in facts (others are admittedly heated rants by some).
I do agree that Digg is a problem. Sure, it’s a huge social networking site – but I stopped reading comments simply because they never stayed on topic, or they attacked people they don’t even know. The comments just get way out of hand with everyone wanting to be the ‘lunchtime joker’ at school that everyone laughs at.
So, with social networking in general – do you think things like this will ever stop?
Rich wrote:
Nate – in the context of this post, I wouldn’t class Roger as being aggressive – merely forthright. And if he is slagging off something or someone, it is within the confines of a reasoned argument (you know this, but I thought I’d make the point).
I don’t think the Digg is a problem, but I do think it has a problem, and that is due in part to the anonymity of its system.
I don’t have any answers to the problem. In fact I’m not completely clear what the problem is, other than knowing there is one.
OpenID may go some way to alleviating the issue, but all it really does is go some way to stopping people putting words into other people’s mouths.
Nate Klaiber wrote:
I agree – he is more forthright than aggressive. I think he is a different case than what you are referring to (the more I think about it).
I agree, and I don’t think it is just Digg – it is other social networking sites as well. We just had an article in our local newspaper about Digital Harassment on sites like MySpace, Facebook and Xanga. Much of the same points were made as we are discussing here. The anonymitiy gives people the freedom to say anything, because there is no physical connection to their actions.
I don’t know if the problem could be nailed down in one sentence – the scope seems to be much broader than that.
OpenID looks very promising, but it will still take people getting involved to make it completely work (some people LIKE to hide behind the anonymity to say things).
For me, personally, it is why I chose to use my real name for places I comment as well as username on other forums. It keeps me accountable to the things I say, even if some of them are rants.
Overall, the Internet takes away context and physical interaction (tone, visual cues, etc) – which can hinder an otherwise excellent conversation or debate. That doesn’t make the Internet bad – you just have to learn to communicate through the different medium.
Rich wrote:
Indeed some people NEED anonymity to say things (for good, I mean). And I certainly wouldn’t advocate removing that freedom.
However some sites may prefer identity in order for people to participate – it would certainly serve to increase the quality of conversation. Although it may kill it altogether. I dunno. If only people would refrain from being asshats the world (on- and offline) would be a happier place.
Mark Perkins wrote:
I really hope that the web does move towards a future where identity plays a bigger and more important role than it does now.
Granted, anonymity has undoubtedly has been a great driving force behind the explosion of the web. But as the medium matures I really think that identity, and the accountability that that brings with it has to come to the forefront.
I’m not talking about tracking people wherever they go or anything like that; but I think if you are contributing to the discourse on the web then you should do so as an identifiable individual, one who is happy to stand by their comments and actions on the web as they would do in the real world.
The web should be treated as an extension of our lives, not as a separate world where people can do things and say things that they would never even consider offine.
Lisa Price wrote:
Great post. And identity of course is not just about a name – it’s interesting how Flickr has millions of users yet nothing like the kind of ‘attitude’ you get on sites such as digg. Having photos of yourself and your friends, or even where you get coffee, means that you’ve given some of your identity away – and what you say has context and consequence. While I agree that there will and always should be space for people to post anonymously on the web, I think maybe we’ll increasingly see that the most successful and hate to say it ‘scalable’ sites will be closed – and by that I mean ironically ‘open’, where everyone knows who they’re speaking to.
On another note, the way the ‘media’ reports on the web is still by and large toe-curlingly bad – there was something on Channel 4 the other night about a 2nd dotcom boom, filmed from a random party that took place last week. The story went something along the lines of ‘new generation of internet whizz kids are making millions in the second dotcom boom’... No real talk of what was actually going on in the UK/Europe, just a few business types getting pissed on champagne and Brent Hoberman trotted out. Gah!
Mike Stenhouse wrote:
I think that ‘identity’ is missing the point.
Even in real life I fill several personae: professional, social, close friends, acquaintances, etc, and people will have varying opinions on my personality. It’s all me but the facets presented are context-sensitive. The aggregate of those facets is, as far as most people are concerned, my identity.
The difference between the real world and the online world is accountability. I am equally accountable in any of the personae I inhabit off-line. Online, however, there is very limited accountability. Or rather, there’s very little perceived accountability. If people realised that their comments and profile pages (probably with a photo, email address and real name) would be stored for all time and accessible from the Way Back Machine and Google would they still be as insensitive? Probably not. More publicity for this permanent record will likely shock a lot of people!