Marli Overgard
RWS200
Prof. Werry
05/11/2016
Everything’s Sweeter in Moderation and a Little Regulation:
The Problems Linked to Online Anonymity
Be careful of trolls lurking in the darkest corners of the internet. Trolls are vile creatures whose sole purpose on the internet are to cause uproar and create havoc through inappropriate commenting and online harassment that can be targeted at an individual or group of people. The trail of hateful discourse trolls leave behind as they lurk the internet fill comment sections, social media, and blogs across the cyber-world. One example of a victim of trolling is Zelda Williams, daughter of Robin Williams who was sent photoshopped pictures of her father’s dead body over social media (Ruiz). One can only image the emotional damage that heinous act caused for a daughter whom just lost her father. What is causing trolling and uncivil behavior online, and how can it be erased? There is indeed a link between uncivility and anonymity. Alan Martin, author of “Online Disinhibition Effect and the Psychology of Trolling,” addresses the link between hateful discourse and anonymity on the internet by stating, “Common wisdom dictates that people are more aggressive, rude and forthright online because they’re anonymous and can act as unpleasantly as they like without immediate consequence” (Martin). Anonymity leads users to believe they are invincible and that their actions and words could never be linked back to them. The way anonymity is structured currently is a problem that needs to be addressed, because it leads to trolling and uncivil behavior. Ultimately, if anonymity can be changed for the better, than trolling and uncivil discourse could be lessened too. The three concrete solutions for bettering anonymity on the internet are keeping it the way it is, regulating/moderating it, or erasing anonymity as a whole. But solving the problems that transpire from anonymity is not as easy as picking one of these three options. In this essay I will look at what has been said in regards to the current problems with online anonymity. Then, I will argue my claim that trolling and uncivil behavior would be lessened if online anonymity was moderated and used in appropriate situations, and regulated with stricter laws that imposed greater consequences for online harassment.
Before it can be argued that moderating and regulating anonymity would help diminish trolling, there needs to be a clear idea on what trolling is and how it is linked to anonymity. Trolls are internet users that comment incendiary and inappropriate things online to provoke reaction from other internet users. An example of a troll is “Obnoxious,” who was a sixteen-year-old boy that found pleasure in harming girls emotionally, mentally, and sometimes physically. Obnoxious was the troll’s pseudonym and he is known as one of the most dangerous trolls in the history of the internet. Before he was arrested and sentenced to juvenile detention, Obnoxious would force girls to send naked photographs over chatrooms and Skype. If the women refused, he would threaten to burn down their house, SWAT them, and even inflict pain on their families (Reynolds). According to Steven Tweedie an author for Business Insider, swatting is when “cybercriminals call in a serious crime – such as a hostage situation or shooter on the loose – in the hopes of unleashing a SWAT team on an unsuspecting person” (Tweedie). Obnoxious didn’t stop at swatting, he reeked havoc all across the internet and found pleasure in hurting as many women internet users as possible. The infamous troll put countless girls in danger for emotional and physical distress (Reynolds). Obnoxious is just one example out of thousands of trolls that prove there needs to be a way to undermine the trolling subculture. To do so, the way anonymity is set up currently must be altered. Anonymity and trolling are clearing linked due to the “Online Disinhibition Effect,” that was created by psychologist John Suler. Suller states the six factors that change a person’s behavior online including “dissociative anonymity.” Dissociative anonymity means that online users feel like their actions taken online cannot be linked back to them as a person (Suler). This effect clearly shows why online anonymity must be changed, because the way it is currently is giving trolls the mentality that they can easily cause mayhem and hurt online users without consequence.
The debate on what to do with online anonymity has three concrete categories which include; eliminating anonymity as a whole, regulating/moderating anonymity, or keep anonymity the way it is currently. There are three people that support these three distinct categories with their arguments. Andrew Stafford, author of “Who are these haters that poison the well of discourse,” claims that if anonymity was eliminated, the internet would have less uncivil and trolling behavior. To backup his claim Stafford states anonymity “just allows people to indulge in their worst tendencies, not only towards individuals but entire social groups” (Stafford). The person that represents the argument of regulating/moderating anonymity is Clive Thompson, author of “Smarter Than You Think,” who claims that if comment sections on blogs were moderated there would be more intelligent conversations occurring online rather than uncivil behavior. Clive Thompson supports his claim by using a specific example on how moderating comment sections have been successful in decreasing trolling (this example will be looked at further into the essay). The last stance of the online anonymity debate argues that online anonymity is important and must be kept the way it is. Dana Boyd, author of “Real Names’ Policies are an Abuse of Power,” argues that anonymity online is needed for safety reasons. She supports her claim by stating, “many people are LESS safe when they are identifiable. And those who are least safe are often those who are most vulnerable” (Boyd). Each of the three arguments have their strengths and weaknesses, which is why I believe finding a solution to online anonymity cannot be as broadly stated as eliminating, regulating, or keeping it the way it is. In the next portion of the paper I will argue my reasoning on why moderating anonymity in certain parts of the internet is important, while increasing laws for regulation will help lessen trolling and uncivil behavior.
Anonymity cannot be fully erased, because it is important that we keep it in certain parts of the internet for the security rights of users. Fully erasing anonymity is implausible, because the internet is such a complex system. Trolls will always find a way to be anonymous no matter how intricate and secure the system gets. Bruce Schneier, author of “The Internet: Anonymous Forever” states, “Any design of the Internet must allow for anonymity. Universal identification is impossible. Even attribution–knowing who is responsible for particular Internet packets–is impossible. Attempting to build such a system is futile, and will only give criminals and hackers new ways to hide” (Schneier). Schneier is arguing that the government could try and erase anonymity, but it is not plausible nor will it get us the results that are wanted. If we want to lower incivility and trolling online, making every user use their real names for everything is not going to be effective. There are some cases where people need to stay anonymous for safety reasons and protection of their beliefs. For example, a woman who is a sexual assault victim may feel more comfortable sharing her story online and asking for help if she can stay anonymous. Or a man who has been stalked may not be able to interact online safely without a pseudonym. There are countless examples on how erasing anonymity impairs users and takes away their necessary privacy online. To be invisible to the scrutinizing eye of the online community lets minorities have a voice that they might not have in real life. Erasing anonymity fully will not result in the most benefits, because as trolls are being silenced, so are the voices of many people who deserve to be heard.
Moderating anonymity would be the best option because it could lessen uncivil behavior, while keeping the right to anonymity for beneficial use. One way moderating anonymity has already been implemented is the abolishment of comment sections on certain websites. For example, Maria Konnika, author of “The Psychology of Online Comments” explains that Popular Science disallowed visitors to comment on their articles, because the sections became a mockery of the intellectual pieces. The anonymous uncivil comments only lead to polarizing views of the articles and made the website seem incredible. There was no point in having anonymous commenting on the website, because no intellectual conversation was occurring. By taking away the ability to comment, the website became more about the research and scientific information and less about the hateful discourse that occurred for no reason. It can be argued that comment sections can be a great place for expanded discussion and intriguing debates, but only if they are controlled correctly. It is important that the people commenting have their identities protected and that is why anonymity is critical, but that also leads to an easy platform for trolling. A good way to moderate anonymity can be exemplified by Ta-Nahesi Coates, a man who moderated the comment sections on his blogs by blocking trolls and creating a community of avid commenters that expand discussion regarding his posts (Thompson). Although the platform for Coates’ blog is considered relatively small, the framework of this kind of moderation could be transferred to bigger platforms if websites really wanted to. A company that has been striving for the solution of moderating anonymity online is CrowdSource. CrowdSource uses contracted and trained workers to monitor the quality, appropriateness, and relevance of content being posted on websites (Ruiz). Usually more that one worker will look at a piece of content for a client and decided whether or not to publish it, which helps prevent personal bias. CrowdSource has been proven to help websites such as Overstock, Klip, and Staples. CrowdSource was also used for debate.org and has lessened the amount of obscene, racist, and despicable comments (Ruiz). If more websites implemented solutions to moderate their comment sections, the internet could be less about awful content, and more about expanding discussion. By moderating comment sections, trolls will have a harder time posting their atrocious content while other users will be able to keep their right to anonymity.
The majority of trolling is as simple as obscene and disgusting words being said in comment threads online, but what happens when trolling turns life-threatening? As I previously exemplified through the use of the example Obnoxious the troll, trolling does not always stop at racist and sexist jokes. Trolling can lead to victimizing other internet users and forcing them to send naked photographs, threatening them and their families, and the leaving the victims in emotional distress. The problem with extreme trolling is the troll feels invincible. When they are controlling a child to send naked photographs, they do not think of the consequences of child pornography; the troll just feeds off the immediate pleasure. Regulation of trolling needs to be stricter so that trolls do not feel invincible to to the criminal system. There are already laws in place that illegalize cyberbullying and harassment online, but I believe that laws need to be enforced more effectively so that innocent people are not being put into emotional, mental, and physical distress. Marlisse Sweeney, author of “What the Law Can (and Can’t) Do About Online Harassment,” states, “right now, there are a handful of ways victims can address their attacker through the legal system, both civilly and criminally. Unfortunately, many of them are costly invasive, and combined with a lack of education and precedent, these channels don’t always offer the justice people are seeking” (Sweeney). Sweeney is stating that although there are already laws in place, they are not strict nor simplified enough to seek the justice these victims deserve. When fourteen-year-old Hannah Smith posted a photo of herself on Reddit.com, the photo was then followed with comments such as “go die,” “drink bleach,” and “get cancer.” Smith unfortunately was found dead after killing herself by ingesting bleach. The coroner concluded that the vile messages “would all have been at Hannah’s own hand” (Carey). The girl had committed suicide and people were blaming her for her own emotional distress. That is the perception that needs to change about internet incivility. Because it is hard to push blame onto an anonymous commenter, the blame is simply placed on the victim and justice is never served. There needs to be stricter laws that enforce consequences for cruel and offensive behavior online, or else more victims like Smith will fall into a path of self-harm, psychological damage, and even suicide without justice. A common question that may be asked to a victim of trolling would be “why doesn’t he/she go to the police?” Unfortunately, going to the police commonly leads to a dead end for victims of online incivility, because online harassment is seen as a civil matter even though there are laws that label online harassment as a criminal problem. Danielle Citron, a professor at University of Maryland’s Francis King Carey School of Law states that many police do not have the training for crimes such as online harassment, because they are not allocating their resources to fight this type of crime (Sweeney). If trolling and online incivility are going to be decreased, there needs to be people who can advocate for the victims and the police need to be apart of that support system. To diminish online harassment, there needs to be stricter regulation laws and police need to be trained to enforce those laws. It should not take victims a tremendous amount of funds, time, and resources to fight off threatening trolls. Anonymous users who think they are invincible must face the consequences. By regulating anonymity and imposing stricter consequences, we could stop trolls from getting away with their threatening, vile and crude behavior.
Online anonymity is clearly linked to hateful discourse on the internet, but that does not mean eliminating anonymity should be the solution. The internet is a complex system, therefore the way to solve uncivility and trolling is complex too. There is no simple solution that will fully eliminate trolling, but there are steps that can be taken to undermine trolls and their inappropriate and dangerous behavior. If online anonymity was moderated in places such as comment sections and social media, users who deserve to have the right to anonymity would be able to speak their minds, while trolls would be silenced. If there were more laws that imposed greater consequences for online harassment, more trolls would face legal consequences and victims would be granted the justice they deserve. Stricter regulations and consequences would help prevent the “dissociative anonymity” mentality that trolls encompass. The internet can be a welcoming place for expanded discussion, intellectual debate, and growing knowledge; but when trolling, hateful discourse and uncivility take over, the internet can become a dark, threatening, and ominous place.
Works Cited
Boyd, Dana. “Real-Names Are an Abuse of Power.” Communications of the ACM. August 4th, 2011.
Carey, Tanith. “Why Teenagers Are ‘self-trolling’ on Websites like Reddit.” The Telegraph. N.p., 21 Feb. 2016. Web. 8 May 2016.
Martin, Alan. “Online Disinhibition and the Psychology of Trolling.” Wired UK. N.p., 30 May 2013. Web. 8 May 2016.
Reynolds, Emma. “Obnoxious the Troll and the Deadly Art of “Swatting”” News.com.au. N.p., 18 Dec. 2015. Web.
Ruiz, Rebecca. “When Your Job Is to Moderate the Nastiest of Trolls.” Mashable. N.p., 08 Sept. 2014. Web. 8 May 2016.
Schneier, Brian. “The Internet: Anonymous Forever.” Forbes. N.p., 12 May 2010. Web. 8 May 2016.
Stafford, Andrew. “Who are these haters that poison the well of our discourse?” The Sydney Morning Herald. April 12, 2012.
Suler, John. “The Online Disinhibition Effect.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 7.3 (2004): 321- 26. Web. 8 May 2016.
Sweeney, Marlisee S. “What the Law Can (and Can’t) Do About Online Harassment.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 12 Nov. 2014. Web. 08 May 2016.
Thompson, Clive. “Smarter Than You Think.” Penguin Press. 2013. Pp 77-81.
Tweedie, Steven. “‘Swatting’ Is a Dangerous New Trend, as Pranksters Call a SWAT Team on an Unsuspecting Victim While the Internet Watches.” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 12 Mar. 2015. Web. 08 May 2016.
Marli Overgard 