Abstract
This paper explores the topic of identity in communities and social networks, specifically, how pseudonyms are used by social media users to control what is revealed about their identity (and to whom), for political dissent, to explore identity, and for freedom of expression. Examining published research by Hogan (2013), Marwick and boyd (2011), Papacharissi (2009), Smyth (2012, Lee and Liu (2016), Baym (2011), Christopherson (2007), Farrall 2012), Schäfer (2016), and Wielander (2009), this paper argues that the individual and societal benefits of pseudonymity far outweigh any harm. While there is evidence that pseudonyms and anonymity might lead to bad behaviour, the evidence also suggests that pseudonymity allows social media users to avoid context collapse, facilitates free speech, democracy and political dissent, affords teenagers the ability to experiment with their identity, and facilitates freedom of religious expression as well as freedom of non-religious expression.
Keywords: online identity, anonymity, pseudonymity, privacy, social media, social networks, online community, context collapse, political dissent, identity play, non-religious expression, religious expression.
Identity, Pseudonymity, and Social Media Networks
The purpose of this paper is to explore the topic of identity in communities and social networks, specifically, how pseudonyms are used by social media users to control what is revealed about their identity (and to whom), for political dissent, to explore identity, and for freedom of expression. Facebook users are told not to sign up for accounts with pseudonyms, but are required to sign up with their real names, that is, “the name they go by in everyday life” (Facebook, n.d.). Mark Zuckerberg believes that using a pseudonym to represent your identity is misleading and deceitful, saying, “having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity” (as cited in Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015, para. 7). On the other hand, Christopher Poole, founder of 4chan, believes “Zuckerberg’s totally wrong on anonymity being total cowardice. Anonymity is authenticity. It allows you to share in a completely unvarnished, raw way” (as cited in Hogan, 2013, p. 292). Hogan defines anonymity as “a state implying the absence of personally identifying qualities” (Hogan, 2013, p. 293),whereas pseudonyms “are a practice, which is often meant to facilitate nonidentifiable content” (2013, p. 292). The two are very closely linked, with pseudonyms being used to represent a particular type of identity, or to obscure identity entirely, facilitating anonymity. Many people agree with Zuckerberg, in that anonymity prevents accountability, enabling people to behave badly on the internet (Christopherson, 2007; Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). However, this ignores the many advantages that pseudonymity affords both individuals and society as a whole. In this paper, I argue that pseudonymity in social networks protects privacy and empowers freedom of expression. Firstly, I will discuss pseudonymity with regards to context collapse. Secondly, I will discuss how pseudonymity facilitates free speech, democracy and political dissent. Thirdly, I will examine how pseudonymity affords teenagers the ability to experiment with their identity. Finally, I will discuss how pseudonymity facilitates freedom of religious expression as well as freedom of non-religious expression.
Context Collapse
Pseudonymity allows social network users to avoid “context collapse” (Hogan, 2013, p. 300; Marwick & boyd, 2011). People’s lives are made up of different parts, which involves different activities, and participation with different types of communities, and the way we behave and present our identities varies according to the context (Hogan, 2013; Marwick & boyd, 2011). We present ourselves differently to our friends, families, and work colleagues, and there are details of our lives which we may feel comfortable in sharing with one group, but not with another. It may be especially important to keep our personal life separate from our professional life, especially if there is a fear that details of our personal life may impact our professional reputation, even if it is doing something some people might perceive as being harmless. Similarly, Papacharissi describes the internet as a place where the barriers between public and private have been removed, or where there is a “confluence of private and public boundaries” (2009, p. 206). This has resulted in the need for individuals to “adjust their behavior so as to make it appropriate for a variety of different situations and audiences” (p. 207). For many, this can be difficult to achieve, and as noted by Marwick and boyd, some people attempt this through self-censorship (2011, p. 125). Although Papacharissi notes that some people create online boundaries by using privacy settings to control who has access to information on their social media sites, for many people, this may not go far enough. As Poole states, despite social media networks like Facebook enabling you to separate your audience into groups or lists, “the core problem is not the audience, it’s your context within that audience. It’s not who you share with, it’s who you share as” (Poole, 2011, 0:49). This, as he explains, is because our identities are “multifaceted […] like diamonds” (2011, 1:20). In other words, even though we still have just one identity, we present ourselves, and express ourselves differently in different contexts, and in order to maintain that degree of separation, people sometimes need to use pseudonyms when engaging with others on social networks.
Free Speech, Democracy and Political Dissent
Furthermore, pseudonymity also protects free speech, democracy and political dissent. Whistleblowers and activists may fear that criticising governments, politicians or corporations will lead to reprisals. Silencing protestors and whistleblowers means that corrupt or bad behaviour will continue, without any accountability, and with no hope for democratic reform. As Joichi Ito said in the New York Times,
The real risk to the world is if information technology pivots to a completely authentic identity for everyone. […] In the U.S., maybe you don’t mind. If every kid in Syria, every time they used the Internet, their identity was visible, they would be dead (as cited in Sengupta, 2011, para. 14).
The Arab Spring demonstrates how social media can be used to organise political protest and “for the promotion of free speech” (Smyth, 2012, p. 928). Protesters can use the Internet, mobile phones and social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter to quickly communicate with many people at one time, facilitating the dispersal of information as well as facilitating the organisation and mobilisation of protests (Smyth, 2012). But as Ito suggests, social media can also be used for surveillance and “to identify and punish dissents” (Smyth, 2012, p. 929). Equally important is Lee and Liu’s argument that the use of pseudonymity and anonymity is as important in a democracy as it is “in a repressive authoritarian society” (2016, p. 19). Even in places such as America and Canada where free speech is enshrined in law, pseudonymity and anonymity protects free speech and democracy by allowing people to express their views or criticise governments or politicians without fearing punishment. Hogan exemplifies this with a case in Canada, where the mayor of Aurora, Phyllis Morris, lost her election campaign because of anonymous critical comments on a blog. She tried, unsuccessfully, to sue the commenters and the website, but the anonymity of the commenters was protected by law. However, as Hogan states, if they had been forced to reveal their identities, they may not have felt as comfortable about giving their “pointed, but legitimate, criticisms” (Hogan, 2013, p. 290). In light of this, it is inadequate to say that anonymity is not necessary in a democracy, because democracies can easily become authoritarian when individuals lose the protective cloak of anonymity which enables them to hold their government to account. Pseudonymity, particularly when attached to anonymity, affords whistleblowers and dissenters a level of protection, which leads to a freer society.
Teenagers and Identity Play
Equally important, pseudonymity affords teenagers the ability experiment with their identity. This is what Baym calls “identity play” (2011, p. 387). Using the internet to explore or play with their own identity can benefit teenagers’ personal development (Christopherson, 2007, p. 3042). Pseudonyms release teenagers from any pre-conceived impressions or expectations their peers may have of them, giving them a clean slate to express themselves any way they like. Christopherson reports that one teenager claimed that pseudonymity meant he could talk to whomever “he wanted to talk to without negative social consequences… [and] people on the internet tended to be more expressive about thoughts and feelings than in FtF [face-to-face] communications” (p. 3042). Someone previously known as being introverted might be more expressive and communicative on online social networks such as discussion boards or chat rooms because they do not feel pigeonholed by their previous social reputation, allowing them to break free from any previous baggage and explore a new identity. Christopherson also noted that gaining confidence over the internet can also lead to greater confidence in offline, face-to-face environments (p. 3042). It appears that identity play is even more important for Chinese teenagers. A poll conducted in 2007 showed that Chinese teenagers “showed a 2 to 1 greater interest in anonymity” (Farrall, 2012, p. 435) compared with American youths. Additionally, twice as many Chinese youth admitted to experimenting with how they present themselves online, adopting “a completely different persona in some of their online interactions, compared with only 17 percent of Americans” (p. 435). This suggests that teenagers feel an enormous pressure to fit in and conform to a social group, which may be driven in part by “a need for a sense of belonging” (Wellman & Gulia, 1999, p. 14; Riding & Gefen, 2004). Pseudonymity means that teenagers can experiment with their identity in a socially supportive online community while maintaining their privacy and avoiding negative social consequences in their offline environment. Fear of negative social consequences can deter teenagers from expressing their individuality and exploring their identity. Pseudonymity thus allows teenagers to play with their identity and discover themselves, building confidence and leading to greater personal development.
Freedom of Non-Religious Expression
There is also evidence of pseudonymity facilitates freedom of non-religious expression. Schäfer (2016) writes of a case in Indonesia, where Alexander An was imprisoned for promoting atheism and attacking Islam on his Facebook page. Schäfer notes that in Indonesia, “where religiosity is the norm” (p. 253), and where there is “growing intolerance […] for expressing non-religious views” (p. 254), a growing number of atheists are using the internet and social networking sites to communicate and build a community of support. In most cases, they use pseudonyms on Facebook and Twitter to disguise their identity while still allowing them to be visible as a group. Schäfer points out that although it is possible for state authorities to trace the offline identities of social media users, it is really the general public who call for atheists to be held accountable. Since the average person does not have the technical means to trace the identities of the atheist internet writers, pseudonymity means that atheists can express their views without fearing a backlash. An chose to use his real name on his Facebook page, and was only arrested after members of the public tracked him down (Schäfer, 2016). These members of the public exemplify the physical local community who have created “an imagined community of sentiment, based on its opposition to others” (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, & David, 2004, p. 336), with the “others” being the atheists. However, it is also clear that even the anti-atheistic community is mediated by technology, and that the atheistic and anti-atheistic communities are both physical and virtual “hybrids” (Katz et al., 2004, p. 337). Schäfer (2016) confirms this by noting that online discussions and meetings can carry over offline, even between the two. While using his real name was An’s choice, if everyone were forced to use their real name, there would be a significant decline in the number of people in Indonesia willing to express their anti-religious views online. So even if a real name is required to become a registered Internet user, the ability to use a pseudonym online protects people from harm, and enables the freedom of non-religious expression. This is also true for religious minorities in societies where non-religion (or a different religion) is the norm.
Freedom of Religious Expression
On the other hand, pseudonymity facilitates freedom of religious expression. China is an example of a “tightly controlling state” (Schäfer, 2016, p. 259), where the government has become increasingly wary of the growth of Christianity. Since 2013, Christian churches in China have been forced to remove their crosses, and some buildings have been demolished altogether (Goldman, 2018). More recently, Christians have been forced “to remove images of Jesus and replace them with pictures of Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping” (Maza, 2017, para. 1). This type of anti-Christian government behaviour has driven many to join underground “house Churches” (Wielander, 2009, p. 166). Just as the internet and social media networks are used by Indonesian atheists to build a visible online community profile, Chinese Christian online publications such as Aiyan have been used to build a Christian community identity in China (Wielander, 2009). Wielander notes that most authors who contribute articles to Aijan avoid identification by using pseudonyms such as Christian names instead of their real name (2009). The online edition of Aijan also publishes readers’ comments, or “reaction to articles […] therefore, while not having the immediate nature of a chat room, there clearly does exist a certain amount of exchange and interaction online between members of the community (Wielander, 2009, p. 170). This demonstrates how Chinese Christians can use blogs or other social media networks for communication and mutual support, but pseudonymous activity seems to have become increasingly stifled by China’s more recent changes to the real name internet policy. In the past, “real name registration was […] ‘encouraged’ rather than mandatory” (Farrall, 2012, p. 434). However, in 2011, Beijing became the first Chinese city to require micro-blogging service providers to “have their users register using their real names and personal information” (Li, 2012, para. 1).Whereas atheistic Indonesians are less concerned about real name registration because they are more fearful of offending fellow citizens rather than their government, the significant decline in “politically sensitive microblog posts” (Lee & Liu, 2016, p. 21) in China since 2011 demonstrates that citizens fear being punished by their government. This will impact Chinese Christians who are no longer able to use pseudonyms to protect their identity. Pseudonyms allow persecuted religious minorities in authoritarian societies the ability to gather in an online community of support and express their religious beliefs.
Conclusion
In summary, pseudonymity in online social networks protects the identity of users and facilitates freedom of expression. While some believe that accountability can only be enforced when people use real identities online, and that anonymity facilitates bad behaviour (Van der Nagel & Frith, 2015), Lee and Liu emphasize that, even when people use pseudonyms, their identity is still traceable (2016, p. 5). This means that anonymous social media users are still ultimately responsible for bad or illegal behaviour, but it also means that authoritarian societies can trace dissenters. However, even in these societies, pseudonymity still provides some level of protection. The evidence suggest that pseudonymity allows social media users to avoid context collapse, facilitates free speech, democracy and political dissent, affords teenagers the ability to experiment with their identity, and facilitates freedom of religious expression as well as freedom of non-religious expression. These advantages benefit not only individuals who are using pseudonyms but society as a whole through the promotion of a freer society.
References
Baym, N., K. (2011). Social networks 2.0. In The handbook of internet studies (pp. 384–405). Wiley. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781444314861.ch18
Christopherson, K. M. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in internet social interactions: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 3038–3056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001
Facebook. (n.d.). What names are allowed on Facebook? Retrieved March 27, 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576/
Farrall, K. (2012). Online collectivism, individualism and anonymity in East Asia. Surveillance & Society, 9(4), 424–440. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1314689548/abstract/C3A6319B862D4E33PQ/6
Goldman, R. (2018, January 13). Chinese police dynamite Christian megachurch. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-police-dynamite-christian-megachurch-20180113-h0hujr.html
Hogan, B. (2013). Pseudonyms and the rise of the real‐name Web. In A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 290–307). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/10.1002/9781118321607.ch18
Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal mediated communication and the concept of community in theory and practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and community: Communication yearbook 28 (pp. 315–371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf
Lee, J.-A., & Liu, C.-Y. (2016). Real-name registration rules and the fading digital anonymity in China. Washington International Law Journal, 25(1), 1–34. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1862879515/citation/64452EB0023C429BPQ/9
Li, S. (2012, February 2). Is real-name registration necessary for micro-blogs? Beijing Review. Retrieved from http://www.bjreview.com.cn/forum/txt/2012-01/30/content_422194.htm
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
Maza, C. (2017, November 14). Christians in China must replace Jesus with pictures of Xi Jinping or lose social services. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/china-christians-jesus-x-jinping-social-services-welfare-711090
Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11(1–2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808099577
Poole, C. (2011). “High order bit” talk. Web 2.0 Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Zs74IH0mc
Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), 00–00. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x
Schäfer, S. (2016). Forming “forbidden” identities online: Atheism in Indonesia. Austrian Journal of South – East Asian Studies; Vienna, 9(2), 253–267. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.14764/10.ASEAS-2016.2-5
Sengupta, S. (2011, November 14). Rushdie wins Facebook fight over identity. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/technology/hiding-or-using-your-name-online-and-who-decides.html
Smyth, S. M. (2012). The new social media paradox: A symbol of self-determination or a boon for big brother? International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 6(1), 924–950.
Van der Nagel, E., & Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i3.5615
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual community as community. Retrieved February 28, 2018, from http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/netlab/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Net-Surfers-Dont-Ride-Alone-Virtual-Community-as-Community.pdf
Wielander, G. (2009). Protestant and online: The case of Aiyan. The China Quarterly, 197, 165–182. http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1017/S0305741009000095
© 2018 Sandra Endresz. All Rights Reserved.