Attacks On Anonymity Conflate Anonymous Speech With Trollish Behavior
from the a-mistake dept
Every so often this sort of thing pops up where people suddenly think it's a good idea to "end anonymity" online. We've discussed this in the past, and it's always the same basic argument -- one that conflates anonymity with "bad things" that people say online. There are all sorts of problems with this, but it starts with this: anonymity also allows people to reveal all sorts of good things online as well and plenty of people say and do horrible things with their names attached. And yet... the arguments keep on coming. Here, for example, is law professor Danielle Keats Citron in the NY Times arguing that the First Amendment shouldn't protect trolls online, and the way to deal with it is to "revoke the privilege of anonymity:Intermediaries — usually the websites where trolls post comments — can step in to revoke the privilege of anonymity, or even remove abusive speech that violates their community guidelines but when trolling turns into cyberharassment or cyberstalking, the law can and should intervene.Meanwhile, a Washington Post article by Kevin Wallsten and Melinda Tarsi talks up their "research" which (the headline suggests) says we should do away with anonymous comments entirely. The reasoning? Their study showed that people liked websites less when they had anonymous comments.
To shed light on whether anonymous comments actually matter for how people feel towards the media, we conducted a survey experiment in which Internet users were exposed to varying amounts of media criticism in an anonymous comments section attached to a hypothetical news story from USA Today. Specifically, our subjects were randomly assigned to a “media praise” condition (where comments used positive adjectives to describe the high quality of the outlet’s reporting), a “media criticism” condition (where comments used negative adjectives to address the low quality of the outlet’s reporting), a “mixed” condition (where half of the comments were drawn from the “media praise” condition and half were drawn from the “media criticism” treatment) or a “no comments” condition (where the comments section was left empty). We then asked our participants to rate the overall news media and USA Today on a “feeling thermometer.”Of course, that focuses just on a comment section in which the focus is on cheering on or complaining about the reporting. What about all of the useful conversations and discussions that are enabled because of the anonymity? That gets totally ignored. As we've noted over and over again in our weekly highlighting of the most insightful and funniest comments -- as voted on by the community here -- it's quite common to see anonymous comments come out on top. And that's because many of our commenters -- both anonymous and not -- often join in on the conversation, rather than just drop two cents about whether they like or dislike the article itself (which the study above presumes).
Consistent with the concerns of the “no anonymity” movement, we found strong evidence that anonymous posts shape the attitudes of news audiences. Specifically, we found that Internet users became significantly more negative towards the news media and USA Today when exposed to a story with an anonymous comments section. Somewhat surprisingly, we found that this pattern of negativity held even when the anonymous comments praised the media’s reporting. Below is a graph showing the average rating of USA Today and the news media in each experimental condition:
Thankfully, at least some are pushing back on this silly idea of banning anonymity. Gabriella Coleman has a great NY Times piece about the important values of anonymity and even how it enables those marginalized by society or victims of crimes to speak out where they otherwise wouldn't be able to do so:
Yes, some people abuse anonymity, but many use it wisely. And yes, some people are obnoxious online. But confusing the two things and assuming that anonymity automatically leads to obnoxious behavior is just wrong. We wouldn't be the site we are today if we didn't make it easy for anyone to comment, anonymously or not. The contributions in our community from people who choose to remain anonymous are often insightful, witty and educational. Are there some people who abuse the privilege? Sure. But focusing on the few bad players and wiping out a powerful tool because of it seems incredibly short sighted.But we should also consider what we would lose were we to ban, or even discourage, the use of anonymity on the Internet. Debates about trolls routinely conflate anonymity with incivility but a broader look at online activities reveals that public good can come when users can hide their identity.
For example, medical patients and mothers discuss sensitive issues (be they clinical or related to parenting) in pseudonymous forums, allowing for candid discussions of what might otherwise be stigmatizing subjects. Anonymous activists rely on the web for whistle-blowing or to speak truth to power without fear of retribution. And, in a strange twist, victims of hate crimes use anonymity to speak out as well: anonymity can empower those who seek consolation and justice to speak out against assailants enabled by the same processes.
Anonymous expression has been a foundation of our political culture since its inception, underwriting monumental declarations like the Federalist Papers. At its best, it puts the attention on the message, rather than the messenger.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, comments, free speech, trolling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yes, much of it is crazy and vile and annoying and nasty.
But, there are MANY articles and posts where the comments are more interesting than the original post or story. I've seen many posts where deep conversations and discussions arise between anonymous commenters and a lot of these conversations would not occur if anonymity was banned.
That's the cool thing about the First Amendment. It recognizes that there is going to be a lot of crap, but that the crap has to be allowed so that more people are allowed to or feel empowered to speak.
Ben Franklin famously used pen names for various writings. If he were unable to do so, what would be have missed out on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Just another slippery slope
It would seem that supressing/eliminating anon commentary would have a chilling effect on all types of "free speech".
Today if someone shouts something it in a crowd, it is anon speech even if you are #officergofuckyourself, while there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, it still seems that we have the reasonable expectation of anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Vote for Anonymity
I have been accused of being a troll, but "troll" is a relative term that often seems to be equated to a dissenting or controversial viewpoint. It is a short walk from accusing someone of being a troll to stifling of free speech.
I vote for anonymity on the internet. There will always be jerks, in real life as well as in virtual life, and eliminating anonymity is not a cure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are wrong! Citizen.
If the law of the land is no anonamous comments then those stupid internets companies cant claim ignorance when me or by brother Special Agent Dickwad come around to find out who has been spewing defamatory satements about by other brother-in-law Jim Ardis. They will have to go all IRSey hard-drive crashey insted, and my brother-in-law loves that lying to a federal agent charge, although I have to to my olde standby... refusing an order/obstruction of justice before I shoot you. :-(
So suck tear gas, rubber bullets and flashbans kiddies. Shit is changing for the better!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In contrast, Wikipedia allows anyone to edit it, with nothing more than an IP address as a record. Something that's relatively easy to change. Heck, between home, work, school, and cell phone, most people probably have at least three IP addresses at any given time. Which with a little care could easily let them play three separate people online. Yet allowing anonymous editing has helped them build a pretty impressive information source, often based on contributions from people that can't be arsed to make an account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm just working from anecdotal evidence, but I feel like trolls are more likely to sign their posts than the average user. With true anonymity, nobody can tell if the new horrible poster is the same as the old horrible poster, and trolls want to be recognized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at the question
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/05/cyberbll.html
Read that, it'll show you what they are really wanting when they decide to use (your favorite cause) to end online anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at the question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But words will never harm me.
This is stuff we learned in the 3rd grade. Pity the anonymous trolls, don't fear them.
The only ones who fear anonymous comments, are those in power. Politicians, dictators, etc. Look at Russia's new "registered blogger" law for proof.
Danielle Keats Citron, is basically advocating for a "registered blogger" and "commentor" law in the US like Russia has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymity is prerequisite for democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymity is prerequisite for democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have the opponents of anonymity spent time at sites that have switched commenting to require "real names"? If greater civility is their goal, they've failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Identifying and Dealing with Trolls
But what about real trolls? Here, we can report them. If enough visitors report that post, it gets rolled up, but still view-able.
Other sites control what posts show up. If they don't like the post, it doesn't get shown. A lot of work for the site owner.
I don't go to reddit, or other like sites (my comments tend to be here) so I am unfamiliar with how other sites do it. Are there some preferred methods? Are there some ways to do it, say in steps or levels?
Is there a way to take the annoyance out of trolls, and maintain anonymity? Other than like here, cause this is working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Identifying and Dealing with Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
control group
If there are no comments, all you see is the news, the "content". If there are comments, you read them, hoping for something interesting, and find nothing. You've wasted your time. And it appears that this is a site frequented by people with nothing much to say. Monotonous praise and monotonous scorn are bad enough, but at least they indicate something. If they are mixed, then they indicate nothing; these sites get the lowest score.
Why not try a more brave experiment? The Washington Post allows pseudonymous comments by registered readers. Suppose it allowed anonymous comments, but provided a filter for readers, to hide or reveal anonymous comments along with the threads that follow from them? Then Wallston and Tarski could see pretty clearly whether their own readers preferred pages that allow anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GIFT
I personally would rather that online anonymity be a subject tackled by individual websites and services. It's probably not going to end though since even freaking Google discovered that it can't force people to use their real identities, so if the government decides to step in... it's probably going to be a case of why we can't have nice things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Used to comment at Torrentfreak too. Only they went to Discus to handle their commenting and I dropped commenting there as well. I don't like datamining.
I've never been one to abuse commenting. I try to at least add something that isn't spam and with few rare exceptions dealing with the trolls here, isn't total put down but rather something that might contribute to the conversation.
I like the anonymity. Pull it and I will cease to comment here and that means eventually I will cease to care about the site, which in the end means I won't visit very much.
I'm sure one person doesn't make a crowd for how much that means. Rest assured though, I will follow through with it simply because I enjoy being anonymous. Once in a while it's a PNA because spammers tend to use the same service I use to hide my IP but it's not because because I'm trolling, nor spamming, nor downloading. I simply value my anonymity and privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/brazil-court-to-apple-google-wipe-anonymous-shar ing-app-off-users-phones/
Apparently, anonymity is illegal in Brazil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spies and anonymity
You know who else should, members of Alcoholics Anonymous(AA). Those mother f*ckers need to reveal every sordid detail.
Police informants and whistleblowers should also be outed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People disliking websites is a very pressing problem that deserves immediate attention. In the absence of remediation untold damages may occur!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If trolls are illegalized
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't understand this.
Is the sample supposed to be representative of all "internet users"?
Is the "hypothetical" USA Today article supposed to represent all "news reports"?
Are the (undisclosed, assumedly fake, somehow "anonymous") "anonymous comments" that were used supposed to represent all real "anonymous comments"?
Am I missing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't understand this.
On the other hand, I could easily believe that reading all the comments below the average YouTube video would lower the average users' enjoyment of the video. For some videos, reading the comments would destroy the average users' faith in humanity. The real irony is that Google stopped allowing anonymous comments on YouTube a year or two ago. They hoped that this would help; it didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't like a product your bought at Amazon? Want to help others spending money at a restaurant with rude waiters? Better check if you can afford the lawsuit before posting a comment.
Trolling may be a nuisance occasionally. Until we can protect commenters from malicious prosecution and other harassment, there are plenty of other options available to keep trolls in check without threatening the right to free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Have Nothing Too Hide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Have Nothing Too Hide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Have Nothing Too Hide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what some people really believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Testing opinions
Barring anonymity doesn't make me stick my name to the posts. It stops me posting the comments. This only leaves me with a circle of family and friends, who often share the same views, to test out the opinions on. All it does is slows down the speed I can test out something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shall we just ignore everything we now know because of anonymous comments?
I'm sorry that we all won't play along with your fantasy world where we all comment nicely on stories that very often are factually lacking, and call an asshole an asshole when needed.
If you can't handle harsh language log off.
Ooooh I'm being cyberbullied...
Call me when they violate the law in the real world, in the meantime stop trying to behave like you have a greater right to not be offended than I have to tell you your an ignorant snot.
All of these "smart" people are focused on the wrong things.
Why focus on the comments and how it is said rather than if what they said is true?
USA Today... not exactly hard hitting media. If they screw up a story for the 99th time, or skew it we shouldn't say anything?
You get them to publish true and factual information, and perhaps the comments will improve.
Some people drive like assholes, how has regulating that worked out? I got cut off 3 times today by idiots.
Some people can't figure out shouting into there cell phone in public is rude, why not regulate that?
Don't try and lump all anonymous comments into the same pile, or shall I pile your research in with the idiot who created the anti-vax movement with his "research".
Paint everyone with a broad brush, you should make sure you didn't paint yourself into a corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's just sites requiring people to register, I'm sure you'd see a sudden increase in posts by Ben Dover, Hugh Jass, Chuck U. Farley, and Heywood Jablowme, among others.
Should sites require someone to enter a credit card number and be charged $0.01 to verify them? What about people who don't have credit cards? What about prepaid cards that can be bought for cash?
Should sites require people to send in a copy of the driver's license or give their social security number? Hello identity theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll be happy to give you the sleeves off my vest!
Requiring a "normal" looking name to comment is an idle gesture. If it ever comes to that to keep the the anti-anonymity crowd happy, I'll provide it. I love it when adversaries are stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gun Control, Body Armor Control, Speech Control, Weather Control
Never say a lack of filters, moderating what you hate, and utter security incompetence, with a dose of lazy phuck as be the true problem, yet let a spammed out board (splog?) be the "calling card attempt" for others to lose rights.
And again we have that UTOPIA shit. This isn't the starship enterprise, you don't just say, "Make it so." when you don't even understand the system's capabilities.
NO AGAIN MR. KASPERSKY
(I know you and feinstank and other retards out there hiding behind this sorry story--praying preying it will get teeth)
THE PEOPLE DO NOT NEED AN DAMNED INTERNET DRIVERS LICENSE.
And you lazy webmasters that are crying about this, grow up.
Go listen to what frank zappa says about words. Go into an angry crowd and tell me how your going to shut someone you can't see up. Oh that's right, you utopian psychopath's have to roll tanks on a CITY to do it!
That about sums it up for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am just here for the comments
That negative nancy study only beeches about anon comments but ignores named comments. Are they that stupid to have done such an incomplete study and then brag about it? That's like running half the race but declaring theirselves the winner. Idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oTNZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oTNZ(').)")..(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oTNZ'MhQhIh<'">rYRVRb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]