We must fight for both anonymity and respect
There are anonymous cowards on the internet who abuse others, spread hatred and distribute obscene criminal material. And there are anonymous heroes on the internet too, who fight repression, spread inspiration, ideas, wit and truth.
It is entirely understandable that Facebook, Google and others would want to stamp on the bad by ending anonymity, but they have not yet done enough to show how they would preserve the good.
Here’s an uncomfortable thing to admit: I find Twitter a bit less enjoyable these days. It is more powerful but less fun. More like work, less like leisure.
In the early-adopter era the social network was a largely warm environment, where abuse was relatively scarce and passionate debate was conducted with respect and good humour. I would tweet about X-Factor one minute and the election the next without fear that the trolls and pedants would start hurling abuse.
In 2011 my tweets are less carefree than they were in 2009. That’s partly because of the confidence anonymity grants people.
As Randi Zuckerberg recently argued, if people were forced to speak online with their own identities, as I do, most would probably be less aggressive and more thoughtful.
But without anonymity we would be starved of tweets from Egypt, Syria, Iran and repressive regimes around the world where internet anonymity is unleashing new freedoms and ideas. We might lose the mobile phone videos that tell us what is really going on, the whistleblowers who reveal corruption and the brave insiders who leak the things the powerful try to keep from us.
Facebook and Google need to show how they would enable these things if widespread anonymity was lost.
In my ideal world social networks would have borders which I could chose to cross for new levels of content: people I love, people I know, people I have heard of and people who are complete strangers.
At the moment I use Facebook as a safe private zone – only for friends and family. I use Twitter as a public place, for work and also for fun but not a place I reveal much about my private life. So Twitter is far more likely to direct me towards new ideas, video and news but is also a place I must have a thick skin. Facebook is safer, but not nearly as interesting.
I have only just signed up to Google+ and am not really using it yet - I can see why having different circles might mean I can have the benefits of both Facebook and Twitter in one place but not until everyone embraces it.
The trouble is, I want to be accessible to everyone and to have access to everything but I do not want to be constantly braced for abuse and offensive material. I want my children to have the broadest possible horizons and to search out new ideas and relationships online but I do not want to them encounter either twisted minds or thoughtless morons.
So ultimately I keep coming back to a simple proposition. Respect is the vital component to all human relationships, whether in person or online, anonymous or identified. Without it social networks become jungles that we will start to fear, like dangerous suburbs that are best avoided.
Just as “never press send in anger” finally sunk in to most of us on email, we need to recapture the culture of those early adopter days on Twitter. We need to preserve the protection of anonymity but fight for a culture of respect. Or none of this will be fun anymore.
Follow @krishgm on Twitter



There are 30 comments on this post
Facebook have been spying on people and passing their information to governments, so I would be careful on that one. Everyone should be able to stay anonymous if they wish, and the key thing to remember is that the Internet is just pixels on a screen. You can block people, turn off your computer, cancel your account, or just get over it and not take random comments from strangers to seriously. I would rather have to take abuse from a million people then put that one brave person from an oppressive nation in danger. Also the free speech and a lack of censorship on the Internet is essential form citizen journalists, just look at western journalists refusal to report the Israel uprising. The only sites I would want the govt to censor and take offline are child porn sites. Even ‘terrorist’ or ‘extremist’ sites should be left online, it’s up to us to teach ourselves and our children not to be taken in by such rubbish. Besides, if you want to surrender your freedoms and liberties for security then go and live in prison. I would rather be free and face the danger, than be a slave in a police state. As ozzy osbourne said in a recent track : I would rather die on my feet then live a life on my knees.
Interesting post. Agree re anonymity and respect. Easy to hide behind anonymity to be abusive – many comments made on online articles would not be published in the paper as traditional ‘letters to the editor’. Easy to be abusive online rather than set out the reasoned arguments that are required for print.
You can be abusive online whilst revealing your identity and set out reasoned arguments while maintaining anonymity. Yes there are lots of people who could do with setting out clearer arguments if they want to get involved in a good debate online, but then you have to understand the cyber culture enough to spot a troll who just wants to annoy you and see if they can get you mad. Why? Well why not for many, but for some it’s about trying to force people into taking themselves less seriously, realising that they don’t have to feel so important or so insulted when a complete stranger sends some abuse their way. After all why does it matter? Why do you care so much about what this complete stranger is saying? does it point to you being more vein and shallow, or even self righteous? It’s the internet, not the house of commons. So either ignore trolls or troll them back, but if your that bothered dont give them the satisfaction, the victory even, of getting angry, over what is just pixels on a screen.
Interesting post. There are a lot of trolls out there and it is easy to get drawn into a pointless argument with someone who is being abusive seemingly only for sport. I’ve done it myself and ended up spending the rest of night livid for no good reason. I should have just ignored them.
However, one thing I have noticed the most vociferous people about online abuse are those in the media who can give it out but can’t necessarily take it back. This is one thing about Twitter that I love, i.e. it has enabled the population at large to question the line the media is taking on a wide range of issues. Yes, there are a miriad of unpalatable views but this is what you get with freedom of speech. For far too long we have been expected to accept the establishment line on a wide range of issues. It’s nice to know that you’re not going mad and there are people out there who agree with you and disagree with government and media propaganda. The trolls are a small price pay for the ability of being able to call out mendacious politicians and journalists in a public forum.
Sorry to read we might see fewer tweets from you on Twitter! A shame the minority spoil it for the majority, but hasn’t it sadly always been so. I have an alter ego on Twitter simply because the account started out as an extension of a message board, then when I got the hang of Twitter, I kept it for myself. For all the limits of 140 characters, the extra information that can be put out on it is powerful. The thoughts of yourself, and the Tweets from Afghanistan and Japan by Alex Thompson were a brilliant extra insight into the behind the story.
I think it is important to retain anonimity for the very reason you state, for people in countries like Syria, Egypt etc.
I don’t use twitter – facebook and C4blogs use up quite enough of my time! – so I’m not sure how it works but what appears to be needed is a way for individuals to block future responses from anyone who has been abusive and in extreme cases to block their use of twitter completely.
Mindless abuse appears to be a growing problem in our society. Fortunately we haven’t yet got to extremes in the media reached by Fox News and certain radio presenters in the USA but give it time.
The responsibility is on all of us to challenge such abuse wherever we find it. If we can’t disagree without abuse, out democracy is really on its uppers.
IMHO If you are famous and on Twitter you have to take endure people’s different points of views or the people who follow you might see you being a bit distant from them and might that you are using Twitter for your own vanity. Of you are allowed to private life and frankly the likes of me are that not interested in what you do in your private life….Unless you want to reveal of course any details about your private life…If I was then I would be stalking (Which I am never would do BTW.) I had to endure people who are pedant but I just cut them with total short swath and just get on enjoying Twitter which I have been done for over 2 years…
Interesting post Krish. I agree with what you say about the changing dynamics of twitter; I have noticed the haters arriving over the last few months. It is a completely different atmosphere to what it was when I first joined. Actually the first time I joined it was still Geek World (sts), and I didn’t quite get it. I rejoined in early 2009 after having been ferociously hunted and stalked by a hater who followed me about anywhere he could find me on the internet spouting ill informed, un intelligent hatred at me for no reason I knew, I found twitter to be an immense relief. I don’t agree with the former commentator who suggests it is fine because you can log off. That is not true, and that person clearly has not been subjected to that sort of behaviour.
However, I understand why there should be a choice of anonymity, but not in order to avoid taking responsibility for your actions, especially if the motive is nothing short of intimidation and hatred of a stranger.
Some people would argue that as a newsman, that you have forgone your privilege to escape damning criticism of what in the end is your professional opinion, whether or not the opinion is well or abusively delivered (not that I am condoning that), however I think it is our perspective that is wrong here.
The problem lies with service providers, especially the service providers. The top five social networks operate off servers that are located in the USA. As a result the providers get away without having to sensibly moderate content by hiding behind the 1st Amendment of the Constitution; the one loosely sating ‘may not abridge the freedom of speech’…they interpret it in a way that positively discriminates against ‘recipient’ of hateful content, because the haters have ‘the right’ to their opinion. That position Krish is the biggest reason why a ‘code of conduct’ (sts) has never been implemented on social network web-sites.
How very strange. I post on the excellent Twittering from C4News’s correspondents, which I’ve always enjoyed and yet still my post is awaiting moderation! Take the compliments won’t you!
Fiona: I disagree with you view, because everyone has the right to free speech however annoying, immature or frankly outrageous their view might be, that’s what free speech means. It’s up to the people viewing their posts to make up their own mind about what that persons opinion is and how they wish to respond to it, if at all. I dont understand what you mean when you say that it’s untrue you can just log off, of course you can. Service providers should not moderate or censor their services, because that’s a slippery slope. Most people will agree that moderating hateful and pointless rubbish is fair, but what about when they start censoring political views that might be fair, but contrary to the service providers beliefs or those of the government. I have experienced trolling and online ‘abuse’ and have gone from arguing back all night to ignoring them, to trolling back etc, the simple answer is to not take yourself to seriously online, put your views across, allow people to disagree and to troll if they wish. If you don’t think to much of trolling then don’t do it, and don’t respond when it is done to you, trust other users to spot the troll and not let them detract from your points. I hope you uderstand that this is a response in the spririt of democratic debate and not me trolling you! As far as Krish goes, post away on twitter, and understand that the people want your honest and open views, not carfelly worded establishment views. Also Krish either ignore the trolls or just lol at them and make them look even more foolish, but don’t take them seriously, because they will count it as a victory. Also make sure you are aware of the difference between constructive criticism, justified public anger, attempts at humour and trolls. For example I tweeted you asking why western journalists were ignoring the Israel protests, the biggest in over a decade, and got no reply. That wasn’t trolling, that was a citizen in a democracy asking a fair question to a representative of his countries media that is supposed to give fair and balanced reporting on world events, but doesn’t always seem to live up to those standards. Perhaps you would be so kind to shut me up by blogging about the recent events in Israel? Of course you don’t have to respond to me however fair my points may be, but it would be nice.
Firstly it is interesting that you presume that people here know what ‘trolling’ is. Most people wouldn’t have a clue because they wouldn’t waste their time engaging in such a pathetic show of deep routed insecurity.
Seriously Master Vigilante if you are failing to grasp my point then surely my point is wasted on you anyway.
A good debate is not won by de basing speakers on anything other than the subject. Making death-threats and casting aspersions on a person only shows a lack of moral fibre. And logging on to 500+ comments of utter hate over several different platforms is very upsetting when they are founded only in hatred.
What I have said is not that people should be censored, but that nor should individuals be ritually abused and liabled by obscure anonymous individuals if in any other setting their conduct would be punishable in law. Whether of not the law is administrated correctly is another discussion.
I agree with most of the comments that have been posted so far. It is the best interest at all those in Channel 4 news that it is OK to disagree with what you say and do not get blocked in the process all because you do not agree with a comment in the 1st place as it tell me that it not OK to view in the 1st place which is not right and it also smacks elements of online bullying…Which I am sure no-one (hopefully) from Channel 4 news does not want to promote in the 1st place…
Fiona I don’t engage in trolling unless I see a troll attacking someone who’s trying to make a fair point, I have some time on my hands and I fancy out trolling them in defence of the person who just wants a voice. I think most people who have encountered trolling soon understand what it is and they don’t have to engage in it to know what it is, I know what murder is but I’ve never engaged in it. I am failing to grasp you point because you say you can’t just log off something that has log out buttons, and cancel account buttons, therefore either your point is not accurate, or I have misunderstood you, if that is the case please explain what you mean so I can understand your point of view, and know that I’m trying to forward my knowledge and that of other people, not cause problems. Trolling is not based in hate, although I certainly understand why it may seem that way at first. Trolling is essentially a game, to see if you can get people to pointlessly get angry over posts that are clearly ridiculous and not based in any sort of sense or reason. If you don’t want to be a part of the game then don’t play, if you don’t get angered by it you will soon be left alone, and if not block, delete or ignore certain users as necessary. Why are you upset by pointless pixels on a screen? Just get over it and forget about it, and I mean that as advice and not as an insult or in any sort of inpolite manner. I agree people shouldn’t be ‘abused’ but once you understand the nature and almost sub culture of trolling you stop seeing it as abuse and start seeing it for what it is, childish behaviour aimed at changing people’s attitudes to how seriously they take themselves online and how easily offended they are by complete strangers who are clearly talking nonsense. If your not grown up enough to take it on the chin and want to run to a moderator then fine, but really taking it on the chin would be a vastly easier option. You talk about a good debate not being won by trolling tactics, and I fully agree with you. Again though you miss the point, unlike you and me, the aim of the trolls is not to win a good debate. A good debate to me is won by polite but firm opinions being exchanged and developed between two or more commentators, so I would love to hear you explain what you meant with the ‘you can’t just log off’ comment as I honestly don’t understand it, and also your thoughts now that I have attempted to explain to you the sort of culture of trolling and my advice on how best to deal with it. I don’t look to stick up for trolls, but equally don’t give a great deal of respect to people who hold such high opinions that they believe trolls should be banned for playing their game, even if it can be annoying. After all if we want to be able to have a good debate, why can’t they want to be able to troll? I think debating is a far superior thing to do, but who am I to say that my opinion is more valid than someone else’s?
Ok, I don’t know what trolling is, but as you describe it there seems to be an element of childishness actually engaging in it.Why on earth do trolls believe that creating anxt is fun and why should their opinion be regarded as superior enough to push satire.
Do you understand that there are many folks out there whose only contact with the world is via cyber space and may not be quite as adjusted and self opinionated as yourself.
I do quite like the aid to defend others being punished for having a view though.
It’s a pity people hiding behind the veil of anonymity don’t follow the golden rule of do/say unto others only what you’d like done/said to yourself.
Moreover, I don’t agree with the proposition that you can say anything you like on the Internet. Inciting racial/religious hatred, telling lies about people, operating a paedophile network, etc…Free speech isn’t the be all and end all. There are evil, malicious and perverted people out there who can do real harm to others with what they publish on the Internet. I don’t believe the “right to free speech” should extend that far.
Phillip, the right to free speech should never be detracted from. I don’t want to see hatred preached on the Internet, but its up to parents to teach their children not to be taken in by such rubbish. Paedophile networks should be referered to the police and they will take any such websites down inline with child protection law and regulation, which is entirely appropriate. The answer is to make sure that WE are intelligent and reasonable enough to not believe the lies, to be taken in by ridiculous and outdated religious or rascist or sexist or any other sort of hatred and discrimination. Let people say what they like, and let us be good enough to spot the truth and to make up our own minds. Often lies on the Internet only get out of hand when the media picks up on them without checking the facts, or when people blindly believe what they read, and don’t allow those involved to defend themselves or set the record straight. If we are all abit more grown up and sensible than how can real harm be done to someone just by a few words that someone has posted? The answer here is not to target freedom of speech, but instead to hold ourselves to higher levels of understanding and reason.
The trouble is that most people don’t behave like that. they believe what they see in the media, read in the “Daily Grovel” & what is placed on the web, sometimes for malicious, misleading or totally obscene & unwholesome reasons. In the world of “Candide” your views might work, but people are a mixture of good & bad, lazy, ignorant & often prepared to believe the worst, especially if it’s about someone in authority or a “celeb”. Following your logic to its conclusion, we wouldn’t require laws at all because people should be able to operate from higher levels of understanding & reason to avoid harming each other. I’d like to live in your world – it’s just the one I’m living in isn’t like that.
We have to be braver these days to reveal our true identies. I used to feel that why should I wrote in a pseudonym as I have nothing to hide and would not be rude enough to attack any other personally or make derogatory exclamations at anothers view, however we now write , blog and tweet with care. It may be a good thing. They may just be pixcels, but words are words and act as evidence for wrong doings anywhere. It is difficult to joke these days in case the words are miscontrued, but in the long run taking care may be a more sensible way of communiction.
Margaret , indeed taking care with your words can be a sensible idea. However I would always encourage people to speak out and let the critics criticise if they want, aslong as you are honest and truthful no one can hold anything over you.
I reckon you’ve hit the nail on the head here Krish. I completely agree.
It occurred to me after the Royal Wedding that if William and Kate really wanted to defeat the paperrazzi, they should take to twitter and twit pic. Celebrities can get in trouble over twitter, but if they were well-trained they could give enough that satisfies the interest of their fans whilst devaluing anything that the ‘gutter press’ might try and release.
I love the fact that with twitter you can actually get closer to the celebrities and occasionally actually having a dialogue, but it does need to be the real person and not their social media officer who writes and reads the tweets.
The problem is that that you usually know which celebrities who post their own messages and who leaves their post to their PR people and it those kinds of people who I feel the celebrity who employs these people should just sack them! But there are celebrities (Which names I am not naming as I am poor and out of work and cannot afford to be sued….) who should not be near a computer in the 1st place!
When I am having a go at someone at Chaanel4 news via the blogs, Twitter etc I am doing it for a good reason. If there person does not understand that I am not trolling I am only expressing my point of view and if there person does not understand that I think they need to look at themselves and think if they should be doing any forms of ‘social media’ as there are far worse people than me out there and who might threaten like the person who threatened Duncan Bannatyne‘s family via Twitter I know this an quite extreme example but this is only to point out that there are quite sick people who use’ ‘social media’ and you will have to know and who to spot them…
This reminds me of 1993 when I first got online. We were on bulletin boards in those days and, because getting connected was quite a challenge, it tended to be a crowd of tech people, geeks and journalists.
No one used their real name — everyone thought that would be a very bad idea — and although there were blow ups, rarely anything like the hatefulness that you get now.
As for Facebook, as soon as you begin locking down settings you miss out on much of the “fun”. There’s a false air of privacy. If your settings are “family and friends” any person that a friend adds can then see all of your content.
Activists are becoming acutely aware of this. It just needs one person in their circle to add an “enemy” and that person can then snoop around to see everything their associates are up to.
The worst part of using your real name online is that you end up with a vast “dossier” of personal information about yourself in the public domain. That’s available to anyone who decides to Google you. People don’t realise how revealing that can be when it is looked at as a whole.
At least with Facebook you do have the privacy settings available. So, some day if you wish, you can set everything to be visible to “only me”. That doesn’t work for anything that you’ve posted in groups though.
The key issue is surely that ‘cyberspace’, be that blogging, Facebook, Twitter or whatever follows next, is a huge and varied set of platforms.
We choose on which platforms to participate – if you want puerile dross, there’s plenty of choice out there, if you want adult and intellectual interchange, there’s plenty of that too. That’s the delight of it all.
Anonymity is a regrettable necessity – it allows us to put forward challenging arguments which, if attributed, could bring inappropriate responses at a personal level. The key is the platform. If I express a radical opinion here, I know others will challenge it, but mostly with respect, and that’s how it should be. But there is no solid guarantee that all readers have that maturity, hence the need for the security-blanket of anonymity, just in case.
Of course, nothing is truly anonymous anyway, as our IP addresses are identifiable in extremis, which is probably a reasonable back-stop.
However, as technology develops further, we will all have to get accustomed to a far more interactive world and gain the maturity to accept any potentially offensive opinion as merely the starting-point for an adult debate. And if that’s how it turns out, then cyberspace could have done humanity a very big favour.
I agree Mr Guru-Murthy that it is a fine line to tread – we must protect those fighting for freedom of speech/expression in countries where that freedom does not exist, but in “the West”, people are too often abusing those freedoms to fire abuse etc. I also agree with one of the comments earlier that banning hate speech is ultimately pointless because it doesn’t remove the underlying fear/hatred. Making the BNP illegal, for example, wouldn’t reduce the number of people with the same views.
My gut sense is the default should be full names on web posts for news websites, but with a capacity to grant anonymity for those who need it. Journalism has always protected its sources (or should) and we just need the right digital tool to continue that practice. I just don’t think the default should be anonymity, WHILE calling for a fully open society. Do we get to demand that everyone is public and open except when the spotlight turns on us?
And I genuinely worry about the incapacity for debate caused by anonymity. Look at any US politics website (particularly Fox) and there is rarely a single example of debate or conversation. Even some US legal scholars are concerned that anonymity claiming freedom of speech has gone too far [brilliant NYT piece on this: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/anonymity-and-the-dark-side-of-the-internet/?emc=eta1 ].
Keep up the excellent work and debate.
The value of anonymity is far greater than any debate on the merits of trolling, greater even than free speech itself.
The more anonymous we are the more equal we are. Real-world prejudices such as race, gender, class, age, disability, sexuality etc become irrelevant. We are free to share this information if we choose, however we are equally free to not be judged on these things if we do not wish to be.
What does my pseudonym tell you about me (obviously I am not a dog!)? First impressions are therefore based on my opinions expressed herein, as they should be. I use this name in many places online, call it my brand if you prefer (personally I dislike that term), my online identity and reputation is just as valuable as offline, perhaps more so. Yet, I feel able to me more honest under this pseudonym, knowing that I am perceived equal to everyone else here, something that may not be true in the flesh.
I find your self deprecating stance unnerving in the insecure way you feel you have to explain to others that you are not a dog yet call yourself a dog.
You almost go as far as to impress upon an anonymity an absolute ,yet being nameless that cannot be .There is no thing to make a template of.
To be objective yet empower yourself with a view called ‘dog’ and moreover put a superior value on it, contradicts the self deprecating tone all together
Could not agree more.
There are a thousand reasons why anonymity is a valuable part of online life. Activists and whistle-blowers quite rightly need their secrecy, but valid cases for anonymity are far, far more common than that.
If we remove anonymity, we remove support avenues for, say, abuse survivors, gay teens (or indeed any gay person who has to stay closeted in any part of their family or professional life). We force them to put themselves at physical or mental risk in order to connect with others. We make it easier for the people who should care about them to control or harm them. Or we force them to stay silent and deny them the support and companionship that can be found on the internet.
This would be an excessive response to the problems we face, and I would not want to hear anyone with a conscience sanction that.
Hey folks, May possibly be the U.S. far far better off sticking with Syria’s Assad?