Should there be less anonymity on the 'net?

[Pure]

And how about at Literotica?

The cases of Amina Arraf and Lori Drew (alleged to have precipiated a girl's suicide by posing as a bf, then dumping her) make one wonder. Would 'we' be better off if there was less online anonymity? Or if it were made more difficult to maintain?

In the article excerpted below, the authors, Bell and Flock argue that the benefits are important, and so the drawbacks must be tolerated and not made a basis for lessening provisions for anonymity. I agree with them. The benefits, including her at Literotica seem to outweigh the drawbacks caused by certain individuals' malice, pranks, and nattering idiocy.



A Case for Online Anonymity.

Melissa Bell and Elizabeth Flock.
[...]

If the revelation about Amina helps to further derail anonymity on the Web, we will wind up losing much of what makes the free and open conversation online such a powerful force. The dramatic events of the Arab Spring and the tumult still unfolding in the region have served to illustrate the need for anonymity, just as MacMaster’s deception highlights the downside.[...]

Online fakery can be truly dangerous. Judith Timson, a columnist at the Globe and Mail in Toronto, saw in MacMaster shades of a recent criminal case in Canada in which a man assumed a false name in an online chat room and encouraged a young woman to take her life — which she did.
[...]

Anonymity has allowed bloggers in the Middle East to safely tell the world what is happening in their countries during the Arab Spring. Anonymity allows everyone online a freedom of expression, a creativity and a breadth of discussion that might not occur if a name had to be attached. The dangers of anonymity do not outweigh the benefits. We need to allow space for the real Gay Girls in Damascus and the genuine Lez Get Real bloggers, whoever they might be.

==============

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...line-anonymity/2011/06/16/AG1tvLZH_story.html

 

[PublicAffection]

I have a problem with people who want to make blanket rule changes because a handful of individuals are being malicious and/or causing problems for others. In the case of what happened with the girl you mention above, I have known teenagers who have behaved that way in person (worked as a clique to get the hot guy to ask out a girl they don't like just so that he can later dump and humiliate her). Anonymity in itself isn't going to drive people to behave that way.

 

[jayce1066]

On other forums I've had heated words with some crazy fuckers (of course, they are probably saying the same thing about me). I'm glad they don't know my real name.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The benefits of anonymity far outweigh the drawbacks. Imposters have been successful in hundreds of other venues before this one-- including face to face encounters, and more people are driven to suicide by real time meat space bullying than by internet bullying.

*shrug*

 

[Pure]

'net and anonymity--the possible vs. the actual

A couple things strike me here. And i do favor a large degree of anonymity, the largest compatible with law enforcement being able to detect and solve serious crimes.

1) The world of anonymous interaction is perhaps unparalleled in human history. It's a real universal 'masqued ball.' There were inklings, of course, with the telephone, but encounters tended to be fleeting. *In theory* all kinds of difficult or taboo areas or types of interaction could be explored, since anyone can share an experience, without sacrificing anonymity.

2) There are already serious breaches in this anonymity, about which most users appear to have little concern. People's computers acquire cookies, and people's IP numbers may be obvious under the most casual scrutiny. Law enforcement and gov't have likely gotten more tools than are actually needed for fighting crime.

3) Actual 'net interactions, in most cases, however are more or less ordinary and everyday for two reasons. a) There is presence of fraud and fake identities. Chances are, if an identity is fake, like "Paula Brooks" of Lez Be Real [!], (Bill Graber), the presentation is formulaic and stereotypical.

b) There is great concern with image and reputation. Ironically, most of us don't want a 'bad reputation,' whatever that means to the poster (There are a few who cultivate 'bad reputation,' e.g. misogynist, but again the presentation is flat and stereotypical, not truly offbeat, radical or iconoclast. This is similar to the situation for 'fakes' as already described in 1) ) As as example of maintaining 'good reputation', most women will not post anything that would cause them to be labelled 'slut.' No one, virtually, will post that they 'shoplifted' anything of value [which would incur the 'thief' label]. There is generally a *lack* of appreciation of the possibilities of shedding an identity, and it's assumed one's reputation 'sticks.' In fact, of course, anyone with a label they 'earn' but don't want to live with, can re invent themselves, with a different past.

In short, the screennamed entities behave mostly more or less like those at the local bar or an ordinary party or picnic, i.e. with concern for propriety, with efforts to impress, etc.

 

[Loring2]

The benefits of anonymity far outweigh the drawbacks. Imposters have been successful in hundreds of other venues before this one-- including face to face encounters, and more people are driven to suicide by real time meat space bullying than by internet bullying.

*shrug*

I more than agree with you on this Stella, hell, I think discussion boards would cease to exist without privacy.

Actually though, how would openness be insured if it were to be made the rule?

 

[Loring2]

The benefits of anonymity far outweigh the drawbacks. Imposters have been successful in hundreds of other venues before this one-- including face to face encounters, and more people are driven to suicide by real time meat space bullying than by internet bullying.

*shrug*

I more than agree with you on this Stella, hell, I think discussion boards would cease to exist without privacy.

Actually though, how would openness be insured if it were to be a rule?