By Ryan Thuys<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Abstract:\nThe purpose of this paper is to explore identity in online communities\nspecifically how pseudonymity and anonymity allow for the navigation of context\ncollapse, identity play, the presentation of ideas contrary to popular beliefs\nand self-disclosure. Ultimately, I argue against Zuckerberg\u2019s comments that\nanonymity in online communities only provides users with a way to harass and\ntroll others. It is important to note that despite there being some validity to\nclaims that anonymity\/pseudonymity are proponents to antisocial behavior and\nharassment, this paper concludes that the benefits far outweigh the negatives\nand that using real names and pseudonymity should not be seen as incompatible but rather complimentary.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Tags:\n#Identity #Pseudonymity #Anonymity<\/em> #Contextcollapse\n#identityplay #SpiralofSilence<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whenever\nanonymous internet uses are the subject of mainstream news articles they are often\nframed in the context of anti-social behavior, doxing attacks, trolling or\nhacking (van der Nagel & Frith, 2015, para. 1). With much of the popular\ndebate surrounding pseudonymity and anonymity being negative there is an\ninconsistently large amount of internet users employing the positive uses signaling\na need to explore their side of the argument and look at the beneficial aspects\nthat pseudonymity and anonymity allow online. The purpose of this paper is to\nexplore identity in online communities specifically how pseudonymity and anonymity\nallow for the navigation of context collapse, identity play, the presentation\nof ideas contrary to popular beliefs and self-disclosure. Facebook is currently\nleading the real name movement with Zuckerberg claiming that having two\nidentities represents a lack of integrity and therefore anonymity\/pseudonymity\nshould be removed from the internet as it causes antisocial behavior. On the\nother side of the argument there are researchers such as van der Nagel, Frith;\nand boyd (2015, para. 6; 2007, p. 2) that argue both pseudonymity and anonymity\nallow users to enact unique valuable identity practices online. Despite there being\nsome validity to claims that anonymity\/pseudonymity are proponents to\nantisocial behavior and harassment this paper argues that the benefits outweigh\nthe negatives and that using real names and pseudonymity should not be seen as incompatible\nbut rather complimentary. Anonymity as defined by Christopherson (2007) is the\ncomplete removal of identifying information from one\u2019s online interactions.\nPseudonymity is defined as when a user is identifiable by a name or signifier\ncreated by the user that will be an identifier for their actions across the\nsite. Their difference is significant to this paper as the two terms are often\nconflated. Anonymity is the extreme opposite of a real name internet while\npseudonymity is a compromise between the two. This paper will argue pseudonymity\nallows users to navigate converging contexts online and anonymity allows users to\nexplore identity without fear of repercussions for breaking social norms,\nself-disclose online and allow users to present ideas that are contrary to\npopular beliefs. These are the four overlooked benefits of anonymity and pseudonymity\nrespectively which makes it an important aspect of online communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One\nof the overlooked activities pseudonymity in online communities affords its\nusers is the navigation of context collapse<\/a>. As\ndescribed by Marwick and boyd (2010, p. 122) context collapse is the removal of\nterritorial boundaries surrounding identity construction that occurs on social\nmedia sites. Users may interact with and construct their identity in front of a\nsingle amalgamated audience consisting of a diverse range of people. This is a\nproblem because people present themselves differently depending on who they are\ninteracting with. People may only feel comfortable sharing some personal\ndetails with people they feel close to. For example, people generally only talk\nabout their romantic relationships or potential love interests with close\nfriends and might not feel comfortable sharing it with their work friends. As\ndescribed by Papacharissi (2009, p. 207) this confluence of public and private causes\nbehavioral changes in its users to adjust their behavior to make it appropriate\nfor a variety of people and contexts. However, any changes short of removing\nthe \u2018real name\u2019 requirement of social networks such as Facebook are ineffective\nsuch as changes to privacy settings. Marwick and boyd (2010, p. 122) outline\nthat setting an account to private does not solve this as users still have to deal\nwith audiences that are not usually brought together such as acquaintances,\nwork friends, and family. In other words, private accounts cannot split the audiences\nto allow multiple self-presentations as would be required. Another solution commonly\nutilized is self-censorship, users simply choose not to discuss certain topics\nonline especially controversial topics (Marwick & boyd, 2010, p. 125). If\npeople aren\u2019t talking about the things they desire to discuss or are adjusting\nwhat they are saying to cater for certain groups of people, inauthenticity can\nbe a result. Which is the opposite of what Zuckerberg is arguing, the idea that\nusing \u2018real names\u2019 is authentic. As Marwick and boyd (2010, p. 123) argues,\npeople present themselves based on audience and context. To clarify, people\nhave different facets of their identity that they wish to present to certain\ngroups of people in certain contexts and therefore pseudonyms can be used to\nmaintain levels of separation between these differing groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An\nimportant aspect of anonymity is that it allows people, especially adolescents,\nto experiment and explore their identity. Social media users can perform their\nidentity online though selectively posting images, writing posts, interacting\nwith others and commenting on other users posts\u2019. Anonymity allows users to\nexplore their identity in ways separate to their pre-existing online identity. As\ndescribed by Christopherson (2007), anonymity allows users to experiment with different\nbehaviors without fear of social consequences. Some social risks include social\nscrutiny, peer pressure and in extreme cases excommunication (Ellison,\nBlackwell, Lampe & Trieu, 2016; Maczewski, 2002).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Users\ncan almost become different people without being singled out and evaluated\nnegatively by peers (Christopherson 2007). An example of this is the anonymous\nquestion and answer site Ask.FM. Ellison et al., (2016, p. 10) explores\nidentity exploration though Ask.FM by stating, the anonymous feature of Ask.FM\nallows users to learn about themselves through answering and asking questions\nin textual form. One of the participants in the study explains that answering\nquestions anonymously gives her the opportunity to write about her feelings and\nopinions in ways that other real name identity-based sites do not afford to (Ellison\net al., 2016. P. 10). Divulging personal feelings and opinions on social media\nsites with an identifiable identity may lead to social scrutiny or peer\npressure. Adolescence is a time of extensive biological and cognitive\ndevelopment and a goal for this time is for adolescents to form a strong sense\nof identity, which if formed, predicts higher wellbeing later in life (Ellison\net al., 2016, p. 10; body, 2007). This is why providing adolescents with ways\nto explore their identity is especially important. Another example of someone\nwhose situation is particularly assisted by the affordances of anonymity online\nis outlined by Maczewski. For this person, who lived in a rural community,\nbeing a homosexual went against the social norms and was unaccepted in the\ncommunity (Maczewski, 2002, p. 122). Anonymity in online communities allowed\nthis individual to explore his sexual identity in multiple ways without fear of\nbeing excommunicated or receiving negative backlash from his rural community\n(Maczewski, 2002, p. 122). This exemplifies the need for anonymity in online\ncommunities for adolescents to explore their identity as real name based online\ncommunities, pose too many social risks onto users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anonymity\naffords users in online communities the ability to express their opinions,\nespecially when incongruent, without fear of isolation. Users don\u2019t feel\ncomfortable expressing their opinions online when they are incongruent as they\nfear isolation (Luarn & Hsieh, 2014). People feel that if they express\ntheir opinions that don\u2019t match up with their friends, they will be heavily\ncriticized for deviating from the norm. This act of self-censoring can be\nexplained by the spiral of\nsilence theory which was proposed by the German political scientist Elisabeth\nNoelle-Neumann. Lin and Salween (1996, p. 129) propose that the spiral\nof silence theory is that media presentations of issues acts as a barometer for\npublic opinions and that individuals whose opinions do not match with this\nperceived majority choose to keep quiet to avoid ostracism. In other words,\npeople decide to express their opinions based on external forces. A solution to\nthe spiral of silence theory is the disinhibition effect. As described by Suler\n(2004, p. 322) the disinhibition effect is when people feel freer and more open\nto expressing themselves online and do\/say things online they wouldn\u2019t normally\nin a face to face conversation. A major factor that creates this disinhibition\neffect is anonymity (Suler, 2004, p. 322). Anonymity grants users the ability\nto separate their actions online from their offline identity which in turn\nallows them to feel less vulnerable about expressing incongruent opinions\n(Suler, 2004, p. 322). Users can compartmentalize their selves to shield them\nfrom any negative backlash or threats of isolation allowing for unpopular\nopinions to be discussed, a part of healthy discussion. Although this\nseparation of online activities from offline identities may lead to harsh criticism\nrude language or hatred from anonymous users the benefits of having a healthy discussion\nand deviating from the norm outweigh the potential negatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anonymity\nin online communities allows users to self-disclosure in stigmatized contexts. Seeking\nsupport, especially for stigmatized contexts is beneficial when help is\nreceived, but there is also a possibility for undesired responses. Accordingly,\npeople do not always seek out support when they need it. Expressing both the\nexperience and negative emotions of situations like relationship breakups,\ninterpersonal conflict, unemployment and abuse can be difficult to talk about\nin both offline and online contexts (Andalibi, Haimson, Choudhury, & Forte,\n2016; Andalibi, Ozturk, & Forte, 2017). Therefore, the affordances of\nanonymity in helping user\u2019s self-disclosure in specialized online support\ngroups is important. Not disclosing abuse has negative health outcomes while disclosing\nhas positive health outcomes in the forms of social help and\/or relief (Andalibi\net al., 2016). There are many reasons people may seek help online such as lack\nof offline support, stigmatized context gender norms. For example, in many cultures, men\nare socialized and brought up to believe that they should be able to fix their\nproblems on their own (Andalibi et al., 2016). For a man in one of these\ncontexts to admit they need help would break social norms and may be unfavorably\njudged. However, finding places or online communities to do such is also\ndifficult as many sites lack the required affordances. For example, as\ndescribed by Andalibi et al., (2017), it is uncommon to find users sharing\nnegative emotions on and social media sites such as Facebook. This is referred to\nas positivity bias according to Andalibi et al., (2017) which refers to the\nidea that social media websites often favor positive self-presentations to\nnegative self-presentations. Facebook is generally viewed as a place for\nsharing positive stories: it\u2019s a place where people go to relax and wind down. Users also don\u2019t always seek support online\nbecause they fear losing \u2018face\u2019. \u2018Face\u2019 is what Goffman calls the positive self-image\npeople use present themselves in interactions with others (Andalibi et al.,\n2016). People feel content with their \u2018face\u2019 intact and as such try to maintain\nit (Andalibi et al., 2016). Anonymity is a solution to this. As outlined by Andalibi\n(et al., 2016) users are more comfortable sharing and self-disclosing online\nwhen they are anonymous which increases the intimacy of disclosures. Consequently,\nanonymity increases the benefit to risk ratio of self-disclosure online by\nremoving the risks. Users do not need to worry that they will lose \u2018face\u2019 as\ntheir actions or words cannot be attributed back to them personally. Users do\nnot need to worry about cultural norms, social context or being unfavorable\njudged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately\nanonymity and pseudonymity grant users with protections to their privacy when\nparticipating in activities online that bare high risks of social degradation and\nscrutiny. This allows people in online communities to disclose personal\ninformation online, explore their identity, navigate complex contexts and\nexpress opinions that are contrary to popular beliefs. Each level mentioned above, represents\ndifferent situations online that are benefited by either anonymity and\/or\npseudonymity. And these benefits such as lower social risks provided by the\nexclusively online features of anonymity and pseudonymity cement their place\nand value in online communities. It is the persistence, visibility, spread\nability, and searchability of actions done online under a real name identity that\nlimits online community\u2019s potential. There is no reason why online communities\nor more broadly the internet should be limited by real word standards, such as permanent\nidentities. Anonymity is a double-edged sword. Being anonymous shields internet\nusers from criticism, social norms and conventions which allows people flexible\noptions of participating in online communities, but on the other hand since there\nare no consequences it also allows people to be rude, harass people and be\nnegative. Therefore, I suggest that anonymity\/pseudonymity and real name identities\nneed not be in a dichotomy but can be effectively used together complement each\nother. <\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/p>\n\n\n\n Andalibi, N.,\nHaimson, O. L., Choudhury, O. L., & Forte, A. (2016, May 17-26). Understanding Social Media Disclosures of\nSexual Abuse Through the Lenses of Support Seeking and Anonymity. <\/em>Paper\npresented at 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, USA.\nRetrieved from https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/301931080_Understanding_Social_Media_Disclosures_of_Sexual_Abuse_Through_the_Lenses_of_Support_Seeking_and_Anonymity<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Andalibi, N.,\nOzturk, P., & Forte, A. (2017, February 25-01). Sensitive Self-disclosures,\nResponses, and Social Support on Instagram: The Case of #Depression. Paper\npresented at ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social\nComputing, USA. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/312260288_Sensitive_Self-disclosures_Responses_and_Social_Support_on_Instagram_The_Case_of_Depression<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n boyd, D.\n(2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics\nin Teenage Social Life. http:\/\/www.danah.org\/papers\/WhyYouthHeart.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Christopherson,\nK. M. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet\nsocial interactions: \u201cOn the Internet, Nobody Knows You\u2019re a Dog\u201d. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), <\/em>3038-3056.\nhttps:\/\/www-sciencedirect-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/science\/article\/pii\/S0747563206001221?via%3Dihub#bbib36<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ellison, N.\nB., Blackwell, L., Lampe, C., & Trieu, P. (2016). The Question Exists, but\nYou Don\u2019t Exist With It: Strategic Anonymity in the Social Lives of\nAdolescents. Social Media + Society,\n2(4), <\/em>1-13. Retrieved from https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/2056305116670673<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Lin, C. A.,\n& Salween, M. B. (1996). Predicting the spiral of silence on a\ncontroversial public issue. Howard\nJournal of Communications<\/em>, 8(1), <\/em>129-141.\nRetrieved from https:\/\/www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/doi\/pdf\/10.1080\/10646179709361747?needAccess=true<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Luarn, P.,\n& Hsieh, A. (2014). Speech or silence: The effect of user anonymity and\nmember familiarity on the willingness to express opinions in virtual\ncommunities. Online Information Review,\n38(7), <\/em>881-895. Retrieved from https:\/\/www-emeraldinsight-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/doi\/full\/10.1108\/OIR-03-2014-0076<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Maczewski, M.\n(2002). Exploring Identities Through the\nInternet: Youth Experiences Online. Child and Youth Care Forum, 31(2), 111-129.\nRetrieved from https:\/\/link-springer-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/content\/pdf\/10.1023%2FA%3A1015322602597.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Marwick, A.\nE., & boyd, D. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter\nusers, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), <\/em>114-133. DOI:\n10.1177\/1461444810365313<\/p>\n\n\n\n Papacharissi,\nZ. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis\nof Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New\nMedia & Society, 11<\/em>(1-2), 199-220. Retrieved fromhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1461444808099577<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Suler, H.\n(2004). The Online disinhibition Effect. CyberPsychology\n& Behaviour, 7(3), <\/em>321-326). Retrieved from https:\/\/www-liebertpub-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/doi\/pdf\/10.1089\/1094931041291295<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n van der\nNagel, E., & Frith Jordan. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency\nof online identity: Examining the social practices of r\/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3). <\/em>https:\/\/ojphi.org\/ojs\/index.php\/fm\/article\/view\/5615\/4346<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nIntroduction:<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Context Collapse<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Identity Experimentation<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Spiral of silence<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Self-disclosure<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h4>\n\n\n\n