Be careful of trolls lurking in the darkest corners of the internet. A troll is someone who’s sole purpose while on the internet is to cause uproar and create havoc through the use of extraneous comments, and they find pleasure in harrasing other users through words and actions. The hateful discourse that comes from trolling fills comment sections, social media, and blogs all across the cyber world. But what is causing trolling and uncivil behavior, 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” (). Anonymity leads to users believing they are invincible, they act like their actions and words could never be linked back to them. Anonymity as it is right now is a problem that needs to be addressed, because it leads to trolling and uncivil behavior. Ultimately, if there is a solution to the problems with current online anonymity, trolling and uncivil discourse could be lessened too. The three solutions to anonymity on the internet is keeping it the way it is, regulating parts of it, or erasing it as a whole. In this essay I will argue why regulating anonymity is the best option in lowering the amount of trolling and uncivil behavior.
Before it can be proved that 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. (This paragraph is going to link trolling and uncivil discourse on the internet with anonymity to back up my argument that regulating anonymity would lower the uncivility) …
Anonymity cannot be fully erased, because it is important that we keep it in some way to have security and free speech. 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 “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 is arguing that the government could try and erase anonymity, but it is not plausible, nor will it get the results that are wanted. If we want to lower incivility and trolling on the internet, 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 fully can impair users and take away their necessary privacy online. To be invisible to the scrutinizing eye of the community online 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.
Regulating anonymity would be the best option because it could lessen uncivil behavior, while keeping the right to anonymity for beneficial use. One way regulating 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” describes 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 to having anonymous commenting on the website, because it wasn’t providing for any intellectual conversation to occur. By taking away the ability to comment on that site, the website became more about the research and 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 conversation and intriguing debates, but only if they are regulated correctly. It is important that the people commenting feel like their identity is protected and that is why anonymity is important, but that also leads to an easy platform for trolling. A good way to regulate this can be exemplified by Ta-Nahesi Coates, a man who regulated the comment sections on his blogs by blocking trolls and creating a community of avid commenters that expand discussion regarding his posts. Although the platform for Coates’ blog is considered relatively small, the framework of this kind of regulation could be transferred to bigger platforms if people really wanted to. When scrolling around YouTube, a big platform that attracts trolls from all across the world, I noticed that people can turn off comments on the videos they post. …
(This paragraph is going to be about how the law can help regulate anonymity and lessen the trolling behavior on the internet. I will discuss what laws are already out there for trolls and how difficult/easy it is to track down an anonymous user. This paragraph will back up my claim that anonymity does not need to be fully erased, because trolls are traceable. It will also provide an argument on why it is important that anonymous users are traceable to law enforcement due to the problematic outcomes trolls can cause.)
Marli Overgard 