| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
Anonymity's Influence on Internet Behavior |
|
<
< | -- By IndraDan - 11 Oct 2023 |
>
> | -- By IndraDan - 11 Dec 2023 |
| |
Introduction
Trolling. Hate speech. Bad faith arguments. Emotional volatility. |
|
<
< | Negativity festers on social media platforms. This warped content is far more plentiful and hostile on the internet than in the daily lives of most of the platform’s users. More vulgar and more cutting, more purposeful (in terms of riling up its readers) and more pointless (in terms of impact off the internet). |
>
> | Negativity festers on social media platforms. The warped content is far more plentiful and hostile on the internet than in the daily lives of most of the platform’s users. The plethora of vulgar and cutting content, seemingly intended to rile up readers, can be attributed to the lower cost of immoral behavior in anonymous social media settings. Cyber Aggression is clearly positively correlated to the reduction of these costs. |
| | |
|
<
< | This reality seems to imply that it is the platforms themselves that cultivate this ferocious content that exists almost nowhere else in human society. Evaluation of how these platforms organize themselves and what incentives are developed illustrate this issue. Due to the prioritization of engagement and clicks, distorted content that is more likely to push “buttons” and incite reaction are preferable. The short-form of these posts does violence to nuanced analysis. Instead, authors (and their readers) are encouraged to avoid entertaining alternative perspectives. The echo chambers that are produced from this communication style exist in every substantive realm, from sports media to politics, far-left and far-right alike. |
>
> | Anonymity and its Network Effects
Anonymity has a tremendous role in this discussion. Internet anonymity grants humans a world without reprecussions - spiteful comments on the internet do not come with the corresponding threat of physical consequences. Further, the provocateur on the internet is insulated from admonishment - they never see how their comments actually affect their targets. Instead, social media communication substitutes real human responses with the provocateur’s fantasies. Central to the disclosure of this negative behavior is that the provocateur perceives that they are unknown to their audience. |
| | |
|
<
< | While the inquiry into platforms' influence over human interaction on the internet provides convincing explanations for the rise of this negativity, the human contribution must also be evaluated. The darkness that these networks pull out is human. |
>
> | This ferocious content clearly is cultivated by the platforms themselves. These networks incentivize individuals to incite reactions with distorted content, prioritizing engagement and clicks. The short-form of these posts does violence to nuanced analysis. Instead, authors (and their readers) are encouraged to avoid entertaining alternative perspectives. The echo chambers that are produced from this communication style exist in every substantive realm, from sports media to politics, far-left and far-right alike. Yet, exclusive inquiry into the platforms’ role in this conversation fails to properly contextualize this darkness - the darkness that these networks pull out is human. |
| | |
|
<
< | Anonymity and Accountability
Anonymity has a tremendous role in this discussion. Internet anonymity grants humans a world without repercussions. One’s spiteful comments on the internet often do not come with the corresponding threat of physical consequences. Further, the provocateur on the internet is insulated from admonishment - they never see how their comments actually affect their targets. Instead, social media communication substitutes real human responses with the provocateur’s fantasies. The idea of shaming, hurting or just refuting the other party fills an emotional itch for these people. If the fantasy of how others respond to the comment is appealing enough, the network is filled with the human negativity that follows, and the provocateur gets a viral tweet. |
>
> | Deindividuation
At the heart of this darkness lies the phenomenon of deindividuation- or the decrease of self-reflection and self-evaluation when someone feels as if they are anonymous. There is an abundance of research that highlights that social media nurtures this behavior in humans. The absence of accountability seems to draw out these aspects of the human psyche. Anonymity blesses internet users with the ability to live in their fantasies. The real world holds people accountable by forcing them to face the real impact of their actions. It is in this way that many societal norms have evolved - people stop doing what others will reject them for. In turn, abrasive, offensive and malicious behavior is almost instinctively met with general disgust. By shielding provocateurs from this feedback loop, network platforms have taken away the human defense to this vulgarity - exposing internet users to the darkness. |
| | |
|
<
< | The absence of accountability seems to draw out these aspects of the human psyche. Anonymity blesses internet users with the ability to live in their fantasies. The real world holds people accountable by forcing them to face the real impact of their actions. It is in this way that many societal norms have evolved - people stop doing what others will reject them for. In turn, abrasive, offensive and malicious behavior is almost instinctively met with general disgust. By shielding provocateurs from this feedback loop, network platforms have taken away the human defense to this vulgarity - exposing internet users to the darkness. From anecdotal experience, users that embrace anonymity are propagators of much more negativity than those that are not. |
>
> | A Crumbling Facade
A core element of social media’s success has been its ability to allow all users to play a character of themselves. Each user writes their own narrative, sharing with the world what they want and conveniently avoiding aspects of their realities. Social media users have no human accountability for the gaps in their online characters. Yet, social media culture continues to develop characters that are semi-detached from their real lives.As a result, users are filled with a false sense of confidence that they are in “control” of what information they share with the world. |
| | |
|
<
< | Platforms user’s operate on a spectrum, with some users tying their “real lives” more tightly to their internet personas than others. Any given user’s behavior can be influenced dramatically based upon how strong the tie is. Noteworthy is that the real life connection creates an accountability for users of how other humans will perceive them. Where internet users feel they are connected to reality, their social inhibitions still persist on the internet. Where anonymity is stripped, human interaction over the internet begins to resemble that of real-world interaction. |
>
> | The irony is that social media’s anonymity is a facade that could come tumbling down at any point. Platforms aggregate data and evaluate their users, creating in-depth psychological profiles. While users stay anonymous to other social media users, deindividuation can prosper. Yet, many users fail to internalize the depth of information that they willingly share. The danger of having their antisocial behavior connect back to them is not as far away as it seems. Though the system allows for no anonymity, it attempts to provide a false sense of security to its users to avoid alarming the people (see Zuboff).The reality that users of the internet are not as anonymous could reasonably change the way that people interact online. It may even change how people feel about technology and surveillance. |
| | |
|
<
< | This suggests that it may not be the actual platform’s organization that breeds the negativity as much as the mindset of the users themselves. For the anonymous users, their fearlessness is hollow. Qualifying their comments as “jokes”, there are few who are willing to attach their names and faces to the negativity produced on the internet. Anonymity empowers users to justify to themselves that their actions don’t reflect on their humanity. After all, no one thinks of themselves as evil.
A core element of social media’s success has been its ability to allow all users to play a character of themselves. Each user writes their own narrative, sharing with the world what they want and conveniently avoiding all other aspects of their realities (In this way, social media influencers are not much less anonymous than the average internet troll!). Social media users have no human accountability for the gaps in their online characters. Yet, social media culture continues to develop characters that are detached from their user’s realities. As a result, users are filled with a false sense of confidence that they are in “control” of what information they share with the world.
User’s are hyper-aware that they didn’t share the picture that breaks their fantasy. With the assurance that no one they know will see the picture, users fail to internalize just what they have shared with the platform. The ability to control what other humans perceive on the internet is the power that social media platforms provide their users. These platforms prey on the fact that their users generally only recognize accountability in contexts they are familiar with (i.e. how other humans will perceive their action). Most users in turn fail to acknowledge that these platforms are surveilling all of their behavior, from the picture they did not post to their subconscious behaviors. The exact things that would normally give rise to human’s instinctive shame are neatly collected and organized under the user’s social profile. |
>
> | Perception is Key
The central aspect of this discussion is the user’s perception. The perception of anonymity takes away cowardice and fear, allowing internet users to release their internal darkness. Qualifying their comments as “jokes”, there are few who are willing to attach their names and faces to the negativity produced on the internet. Anonymity empowers users to justify to themselves that their actions don’t reflect on their humanity. After all, no one thinks of themselves as evil. |
| | Conclusion |
|
<
< | The irony is that social media’s anonymity is a facade that could come tumbling down at any point. Users unfamiliar with the way the platform absorbs their information believe that they are insulated, unaware of what they have already given up and willingly accepting the antisocial behavior that the platforms’ promote. The system of providing false anonymity has distorted how humans interact, and dramatically increased the amount of negativity that people experience in their daily lives.
While full-accountability on the internet would likely come with its own set of dystopian consequences, the impact that the current system has on human behavior illustrates an issue that must be addressed with change. It may be necessary for humans to recognize that their actions on the internet are not so remote from their real lives for the common man to champion privacy rights.
One way to improve this draft would be to give what is an opinion piece about social psychology some social psychology. The literature about anonymity and pseudonymity is hardly sparse, but you don't refer to any of it. Some of Sherry Turkle's Alone Together, which I have already assigned, would help, along with the literature she discusses. Even more important is her Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (1997), which is a masterpiece of knowledge and foresight.
Another route to improvement might be to consider more directly the politics of your inclinations. "Full accountability" might be "dystopian," but ... ?! If there are rights involved anywhere, you don't identify or discuss them. (This is odd, because even the US Supreme Court found its way in the course of the 20th century to the conclusion that a right to anonymity is inherent in the First Amendment's freedom of speech and of the press.) If there are no rights involved that would render mostly or completely irrelevant our attitudes about other people's behavior, it would be good to say why.
On the other side, there is the politics of behavior collection. If you consider profiling by entities in civil society not to be within their constitutional rights (to learn, to analyze, to publish), then it would be desirable to explain why they have no such rights or the ones they have are inapplicable. If they do have such rights, but they are subject to regulation anyway, it would be good to square that regulatory form and substance with the constitutional limits that exist. (I will be tackling all these questions in Computers, Privacy and the Constitution next term, but that certainly doesn't stop you from doing good thinking about them now.)
|
>
> | How intensely internet platform’s cultivate security in a user’s perception of anonymity seems to demonstrate the importance of this perception. Yet, it is no shock to most that internet apps are watching. The idea that your “iPhone is listening” to the conversations you have (both on the phone and not) is commonplace - everyone knows that surveillance is happening. Interestingly, this awareness does not result in the perception of anonymity falling apart. This may indicate that people’s perception (as it relates to deindividuation) is focused on anonymity from other people. Does this mean that most people don’t care if they are being watched? Or does it mean we have already accepted being watched as an unavoidable part of using the internet? |
| | |
|
>
> | Evaluation of how negative internet content is developed illustrates how big tech companies manipulate human psychology. The network (or the parasite) has created its feedback loop by taking advantage of instinctual behaviors. These platforms prey on the fact that their users generally only recognize accountability in contexts they are familiar with (i.e. how other humans will perceive their action). Most users in turn fail to acknowledge that these platforms are surveilling all of their behavior, from the picture they did not post to their subconscious behaviors. The exact things that would normally give rise to human’s instinctive shame are neatly collected and organized under the user’s social profile. In order to instigate change it may be necessary to target this perception of anonymity. If this perception was damaged, the value of actual anonymity may increase. In general, understanding human psychology on the network can be extremely useful, both to understand the network itself and to understand how to change it. |
| |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |