Is web anonymity such a good thing?

As always, there are compelling arguments for cracking down – or stoutly defending – web anonymity depending on which side of the fence you’re on.

Most in favour of concealing or altering one’s identity online argue that social networks only insist on users entering their actual names (and other personal particulars, including a verifiable email address) at the time of registration because it helps them make money since a ‘real’ name is more lucrative for advertisers than a profile such as ‘LondonGal’ or ‘CoolDude’. It stands to reason that the more these networking companies learn about their audience the better they can target adverts of interest and therefore, make more money.

But having said that, it is unlikely that people would focus on the first name or last name fields to target potential buyers. Also, it would by far be the least exact (and least scientific) way that Google has, for instance, to connect a user’s profile with his other behavior on Google. Arguably, more important than the name would be information on demographics and interests for this could potentially net advertisers good revenue. This in turn suggests that information on people’s intent – search and social behaviour – would be more valuable to an advertiser than just a name and that merely obtaining a user’s name may not fetch social networks the revenue windfall that critics think it would.

A number of websites – not necessarily networking ones – require users to enter their personal data. And if most people have overcome – or set aside – privacy concerns and filled in the required information fields on those sites, there is little reason for them to fear that doing the same on Google+, Facebook and LinkedIn will compromise them. After all, no company, especially in today’s (social) networked world would want to deliberately rub customers the wrong way and trigger a backlash that could quickly go ‘viral’ in the ‘virtual’ world since it could soon put them out of business.

There is some merit in the recent statement of Google chairman Eric Schmidt that “the Internet would be better if we had an accurate notion that you were a real person as opposed to… a fake person or a spammer”. Schmidt perhaps went a little too far when he spoke of introducing “strong identity” on the Internet, making every user easily identifiable and traceable. But his remarks certainly help explain the move by Google+ to delete or suspend accounts without real names attached.

Google has argued that to use its new network effectively, users should be able to search for a friend or family member as quickly and easily as possible. And that, it says, means demanding real names. “By providing your common name, you will be assisting all people you know in finding and creating a connection with the right person online,” a company spokesman said recently.

Google’s guidelines are very similar to other social networks and it has to be said that despite the indignation of some Google+ users at being ejected, the company has every right to set its own rules. The fact that what Schmidt termed “strong identity” should not be embedded into the fabric of the Internet needn’t prevent individual enterprises from trying to cultivate it.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has in the past said the use of multiple identities amounts to “a lack of ethics”. He may have overstated his case but his sister and former Facebook marketing director Randi Zuckerberg probably hit the nail on its head when she said recently that “anonymity on the Internet has to go away”. Elaborating, Ms Zuckerberg pointed out: “People behave a lot better when they have their real names down… I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.”

Anyone who has participated in an online debate/ discussion or posted comments on a news/ entertainment site has almost certainly experienced first-hand how the prevalence of anonymity at online forums has helped spawn a culture of aggression and cyber-bullying. Not only are many sites plagued by “trolls” and “flame wars” between rivals but anonymity is often abused to bully others and can be extremely unpleasant especially if you find yourself at the receiving end of it. What is worse is that even if one were to complain to the website and get the offender’s account suspended, he can just as easily open another unverified account and get back to harassing others under a different name.

Arguably, some of this behaviour would still occur if people had to use their own names for, even as interactivity on the Internet has broadened civic engagement, it has been accompanied by the unwanted baggage of incivility – it is difficult to get one without the other. But it is undeniable that anonymity increases the incentive to behave badly since it makes it difficult to trace users and regulate their activity. Even worse, the tendency of anonymous users to misuse their freedom to post offensive comments and/ or indulge in irresponsible behavior often ends up reducing participation on online forums instead of increasing it since those interested in a civil exchange of views and honest interaction are likely to be put off and will keep away.

Insisting on real names can help combat spam. MySpace struggled with it in the past and Twitter ‘spambots’ tend to crop up from time to time. It can be argued that the use of real names would drastically reduce the unpleasantness on online forums for people are more likely to act responsibly and in a civil manner when they are using their real names. It would certainly reduce the ‘overheating’ that takes place when some emotive or highly controversial topic is being discussed. And in many cases, having a real name against the views being expressed would ensure that they are taken more seriously than if they happen to be ascribed to ‘MBoy78’ or ‘Cindrella’.

Unfortunately, the use of real names hasn’t managed to eliminate the use of trolls and bad behavior. In addition, the proposal to tie real-world identities to online actions is controversial and can have negative consequences in terms of suppressing dialogue. Many privacy and free speech advocates counter that anonymity is necessary to protect dissidents, human rights activists and some others, like victims of sexual abuse.

Some users opt to hide their identity to avoid being reached by people they would rather not be contacted by. But there are others who have no choice but to remain anonymous because they happen to live in regimes where identification could have serious implications for them and their associates owing to their political or religious views.

Banning anonymity altogether, be it in the virtual world or the real one, would breach civil liberties and would probably cause serious problems for some. The right to anonymity when voicing one’s opinions helps prevent victimization and can be a shield from the tyranny of the majority under repressive regimes. It allows activists the protective cover beneath which they can demand accountability or freedom from undemocratic governments. If everyone had to be identified and could be traced by the authorities, freedom of expression would suffer.

Perhaps the way around these competing pro- and anti-anonymity concerns is to allow pseudonymity – the use of avatars and pseudonyms so that sites can identity and weed out persistent mischief-makers and users gain a sense of others’ personalities. But that does not fully address the problems mentioned earlier in the article. Perhaps the way forward could be to encourage users to disclose their full identities by rewarding them for doing so. Favouring or rewarding the comments of those who have the courage to stand behind their views with their names could, in due course, make it simply unfashionable to continue with an alias.

It could also help cultivate an engaged and intelligent base of users and attract people who have been put off by the abuse of anonymity. That would be a true expression of freedom, not its curtailment.

As with most things in life, there are no easy answers nor a one-size-fits-all solution. What do you think is the way ahead? Should things reach the point that governments themselves demand that people use their names for all online activity? Or should people be free to decide whether they want to remain anonymous? And indeed, will forcing online users to use their real names actually curb cyber-harassment? Should anonymity be banned or even curtailed? Will regulation of the Internet and networking sites allay the problem? Or are stricter measures necessary? Let us know what you think at vikas@khaleejtimes.com