To reveal oneself or not. That’s the unenviable moral choice all parents and teachers now face: how to educate kids about Internet anonymity? Should we teach our children that it’s OK to invent fake online personas, or should we insist that they tell the truth and broadcast their real identities? The moral dilemma is actually a lot more complicated than it first appears.
Today’s generation of kids under the age of sixteen –- let’s call them Generation Facebook –- are the first to literally grow up on the Internet. Teaching these kids that it’s OK to lie about one’s identity has profoundly dangerous long-term consequences. It is legitimizing the idea of anonymity, thereby transforming the Internet from a community of real people into an atomized chaos of fictional characters. Generation Facebook have the potential to be the first real Internet citizens –- yet genuine online citizenship is the first and most tragic casualty of an Internet inhabited by anonymous characters.
The first impulse, particularly of parents, is to encourage our kids to lie about who they are or, at least, not to tell the whole truth about themselves. It’s very hard, for example, for a parent of a pubescent girl with a MySpaceor Bebo page, to encourage their daughter to publicly acknowledge her age -- let alone reveal other more intimate details about her identity.
Parents are understandably paranoid about the social scum –- the sexual predators, the financial scammers, the con artists, the bullies, and the gossips –- who are corrupting the Internet with their criminality, perversions, and incivility. And it’s only natural that, in order to protect their kids from this evil, many parents are encouraging them to create invented online identities.
Three recent well-known cases symbolize the evils of online anonymity. There is the appalling case of Megan Meier, a 13 year-old Missouri girl, who was driven to hanging herself in 2006 because of the anonymous postings authored by the mother of a neighbor. There is the equally publicized case of the two female Yale Law School students who have been persecuted by anonymous (and patently untrue) postings saying that they are both lesbians, have sexually transmitted diseases, and have given sexual favors to Yale faculty. Then there is the case of Lisa Krinsky, the COO of a Florida drug service company, whose professional reputation as a businesswoman and company officer has been dragged through the mud on various Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO) message boards.
In each case, real lives have been wrecked by the evil actions of anonymous Internet users. And, in each case, the courts –- under pressure from First Amendment fundamentalists –- have failed to treat these anonymous users as criminals.
But the corrosive consequences of anonymity go beyond these dramatic cases. You see, anonymity is fast becoming the fundamental curse of the contemporary Internet. Vulgar and irresponsible anonymous Internet users are souring public discourse, corrupting message boards, establishing a bilious online world of vitriol and insult. By doing away with the human element on the Internet, anonymity is turning the Web into a literal version of Second Life. We aren’t treating each other correctly on the Internet because, when we don’t reveal who we are, we aren’t investing our real selves in online relationships.
Generation Facebook needs to understand that every action on today’s Internet has consequences. If you steal music, for example, you are killing the recorded music industry. If you aren’t willing to reveal yourself in a social network like MySpace or Bebo, then there’s nothing really social about that network. And if our kids are uncomfortable revealing who they actually are on a social network –- just as we don’t let our kids wander into certain neighborhoods -– then they shouldn’t be in one of these social networks in the first place.
Can anonymity be legislated out of existence? Fortunately, we don’t live in Iran or China, and we aren’t under the rule of an authoritarian government that can get away with treating all online anonymity as a crime. That, of course, is as bad a solution as an entirely unregulated Internet in which anyone is free to be any fictional character they choose to be.
So it’s really up to us, as parents and teachers, to educate Generation Facebook about the inhuman consequences of anonymity. It’s quite simple: if we want the Internet to replicate the most civil qualities of human society, then online citizens need to reveal who they are. If not, then life on the Internet will inevitably be nasty, brutish, and short.
— Andrew Keen, Silicon Valley author, broadcaster, and entrepreneur
Your article raises some important points that needs solving, however I believe that the problems that Anonymity is causing is because we forget basic human (civilized) rules. Apply them and we should have the problem drastically reduced.
Times do change and so must we, however the fundamentals of our humanity doesn't and we should therefore seek to superimpose these fundamentals on our use of the Internet. When we do, we should be on our way to getting solutions to our the current problems.
* First we all do accept that a person is innocent until proven guilty, so if an anonymous person presents information about another person it would be unwise for anyone to act on that information as the credibility of the person presenting the information is unclear.
*In the Internet space, it is not impossible to create verification mechanisms for ensuring we know who we are interacting with, it is just that for most sites it is not deamed important to have a real identity so the creators do not insist on actual user identity. But in the face of clear evidence of the harm anonymity can cause, the must ba fundamental rethink on site policy. Given value to the human rights element.
The problems that have been mentioned may mean that site creators must be well aware of the potential dangers of the type of site they are creating and decide whether or not anonymity should be allowed given the overall goal of creating the site.
What I am arguing is that for descerning users of the Internet it should be made clear that there are civilized rules that we must follow in our Online interaction where we must note whether anonymity is allowed or not. If it is, then, we need to be wise in the use of what ever information we acquire from or provide to the site. With the basic rule that when anonymity is allowed, except for trivial matters, the onus lies on who ever wants to use information gained to further check that the informtion is authentic before using it, else treat it as a pinch of salt.
With regard to children and even adult users, we simply have to let them know that there are different social groups on the Internet and that there are some where anonymity is advised and others where anonymity isn't. And of course give reasons why anonymity is preferred in some instances and why it is not reasonable or rather acceptable in other instances.
In the end therefore, the whole of Internet Users need to know where anonymity is okay and where it is not, and the humanity based rules that must apply when we decide to use either. The case of lying isn't necessary when we, the human community decide when anonymity is expected and the value we must assign to that social setting and when anonymity is not allowed and its relative value. For example it is okay to tell children that because of the real dangers out there, when joining a general chat on the Internet a fake identity is okay (of course this must be know to all site users), after all the environment it not one whose benefit is reduced by the anonymity of the users. On the otherhand if they join an association where membership is required and co-operation between members necessary, then because this is a controlled environment, they must give their true identities.
So basically, I think that as always technology must serve humanity and we do have the capability and the sense to create an Internet where everyone is still expected to behave in a civilized manner.
I don't really think that it's all that bad...people just need time to get used to new space. new rules...but this is still human communication and people don't really trust anonymous.And they really don't like gender or age shifts and I know that less people really like there "games".
I mean Internet becomes just another communication channel like phones for example.And though there are phone pranks,nobody really discuss the problem of phone anonymity.It will take time, but in 10-20 years, I don't think that will be a problem
"Although children and young people are delighted with the opportunities open to them on the internet, especially for social networking, many of them are giving out personal information without realising who might see it," said Professor Sonia Livingstone, director of EU Kids Online.
"Our research has found substantial amounts of bullying, harassment and unwanted sexual messages, which is very distressing for some." ...z....
The report concludes that advice and guidance to teenagers is sorely needed, especially in countries new to the internet or where teenagers' experiences are ahead of their ability to cope. Greater care is also needed in targeting advice depending on cultural and individual circumstances when it comes to giving out personal information online.
EU Kids Online believes that social networking sites could do more to advise teenagers about their privacy and ensure that they understand the implications of disclosing personal details.
I am not sure what end of the baton Jasper Sluijs is holding; when he says "I'm afraid that you're doing this in such a sensational and unidirectional way, that it will add little to any debate on this topic". A further smack of the glove; is given by "Moreover, you obviously don't know about" ...z.... Then this " This is simply not true, the web allows for way more control surveillance over people's whereabouts and behavior then in RL––so one can take them to court based on this. "
Yet the Face Plant sites are challanged by; DailyTech reported earlier this month that MySpace has signed an agreement with 49 states to protect its users. MySpace says that applications created with its new developer kit will never have access to more information that is available on the profile page of a user. Have the people putting up an available profile read the agreement?
I am safe ( i think ) but are you ? ( i trust )
Industrial safety designers have a vested interest in the development and infulences of human behaviour... " In my opinion, the process of discovery of concious and caracter should take place before the social discovery by internet alone. The absence or presence of parental guidance; in internet use by children is a value pivotal in becoming real.
For me, not falling into any of Jasper's stated age brackets; i endevour to make my internet experience real, contributive and human. " As to what end of the baton , i am holding; i only know that i have a responsibility as an adult; to hold it.
As you illustrate, things are way more complicated than stated above. Booing the evil, evil internet for corrupting the minds of our children is basically sticking one's head in the sand.
Yes, the US legal system allows to press charges in case of slander and libel. The first amendment is very prominent in US legislation though, which in most cases is in favor of the defendant. This in contrast to the rest of the word, where defamation charges are more easily upheld by courts. In any case, regarding both online and offline spheres, a first step would be to centralize laws here. In an inter(net)connected US, it doesn't hold that there's different laws on what is slander in Arizona and Massachusetts.
And remember, there already is a lot of legislation on the internet...which does create a lot of problems in relation to other foreign legislature.
What is also missing from this discussion is the argument of "anonymity" being a free and creative outlet of self expression. When the Internet first gained initial popularity in 1994, universal logins to sites included "Anonymous" settings. Throughout recorded history, there has always been an element of "scourge" to sour everything- remember the snake in the Garden of Eden?The Internet is one of the last legal areas in this world where people can truly be anonymous and escape their everyday lives. I don't think it's so wrong that individuals not identify themselves online or be subject to some type of verification system. Are there pedophiles online masking themselves as 12-14 year old children? Are there scam artists online trying to convince trusting folks to send them money? Are there always going to be people in this world who will try and harm the innocent, gullible and believing- absolutely! It's what skills, values and beliefs we instill in our children, family and those more trusting people in this world that protect us from harm and not additional governmental controls.How many well meaning parents have that home computer set up in a visible family room with restricted hour access set for all logins? How many parents have blocked adult channels from their cable television subscriptions? How many working parents can spend quality time with their children and know all of their after school habits and friends? How many people really know their pastors/ministers, child's teacher and neighbors well? That lack of time to pay attention or setup rules and controls is the root of many of these problems and not the influence of the Internet or other visual and audio media (e.g. graphically violent movies or "gangster rap" songs and videos). After all, it was a perfectly "normal looking" young woman in her 20s who conned the residents of her city out of tens of thousands of dollars by pretending to have cancer at in-person fundraisers.If we force people to identify themselves online, what happens to that abused wife or child that escapes the pain of their everyday life by "pretending" on the Internet in a gaming or chat scenario? Does that spouse who harmlessly flirts in an online chat suddenly lose their family because "Big Brother" has "outed" them? Do current or future employers suddenly have the right to fire you at will because you lied about your age to save 10% on an online purchase? And, at what point do we distinguish online fraud on the basis of anonymity (age, sex, race, sexual orientation)?
Our current justice system allows us to pursue cases on the basis of libel and slander. Our current justice system allows us to issue restraining orders. However, if we allow our current justice system to enact legislation on the Internet, this now becomes a global issue with global jurisdiction and what may be acceptable in the US will not be tolerated in the EU or middle Eastern countries. It's a slippery slope and one on which we should tread very lightly.
I have to agree with you on most all of your points. Internet or not, if someone REALLY wants to hide their true identity, they will do so.
As far as what to teach the kids, they are already being taught not to give out personal information, not to give full names, not to agree to meet people they talk to only online, etc., etc. It is like in the non internet world, when not talking to strangers is knocked into their heads. But still, there are many kids who choose not to listen, for whatever reason, and do exactly what they have been taught not to. As long as this problem exists, what can you do?
One thing that I do see, is that some crime could be much more preventable on the internet. Continuing to use kids as the example, how many crimes could have been prevented, if the kid (or even adult) had just not given out his or her name and agreed to meet their internet "friend" at the mall?
The internet can really be a great tool if used properly. You can meet some really interesting people, some really cool people, and even some dangerous people. But with the internet, you have anonymity that can actually protect you, should you choose to be smart and use it. And you also have the choice of no longer talking to someone who you may be suspicious of simply by hitting a delete button, and staying safe. But again, it means beig smart and not telling your life story in a chatroom.
I think it's a good thing that you try to catalyze discussion about online anonymity. However, I'm afraid that you're doing this in such a sensational and unidirectional way, that it will add little to any debate on this topic.
First of all, check your facts. You might find it rhetorically powerful to call the <16 generation 'generation facebook', but actual facebook demographics show that most users are in between 18 and 24 or 35 and 54. Moreover, you obviously don't know about facebook's own policies against anonymous users. Also, you seem to regard the internet as some sort of Sodom and Gomorrah where anything goes. This is simply not true, the web allows for way more control surveillance over people's whereabouts and behavior then in RL––so one can take them to court based on this. However, the real problem here is that under US law it is very hard to prosecute someone for defamation and slander, and legislation on this topic varies from state to state. The real problem thus lies at the legal side of the spectrum.
What remains is rather empty rhetoric. Sonorous statements like
"But the corrosive consequences of anonymity go beyond these dramatic cases. You see, anonymity is fast becoming the fundamental curse of the contemporary Internet. Vulgar and irresponsible anonymous Internet users are souring public discourse, corrupting message boards, establishing a bilious online world of vitriol and insult"
might be interesting rhetorically, but I don't see where this is in any way constructive. Yes, it is crucial to educate children about the virtues and dangers of the internet. I would find it much more interesting though to read about what your ideas would be on fostering internet literacy, and how this should be implemented in the educational system.
I have conflicting reactions to all of this; historically, people could leave their hometowns, move somewhere else, claim a new ID and no one would ever necessarily find out about their original life. The value in this was "starting over", escaping dangerous relationships, being able to be an individual in a society that might have demanded groupthink.
Internet does indeed make it easier for people with malicious intent to act with impunity. And yet that anonymity cuts two ways;
- it makes it difficult to identify the miscreants and hold them accountable
- it allows victims of stalkers and harrassers to hide their identity and not be found
It also allows people to explore new avenues in their life without having to commit before they are ready to do so.
The assumption that having to state our real names online would solve some of the problems overlooks the fact that people can lie about that just as easily as they can assume a screenname.
Announcing true identities online does indeed pose security risks to children and also to women. I long ago stopped uploading pictures of myself because I started getting too much "feedback" of a very explicit type.
So what do we teach kids? To tell part of the truth but leave out details perhaps. To be careful about what they say about others, certainly. Beyond that, I think standards will evolve along the lines that they have in non-cyber life; social "rules" don't have the force of law, but they operate effectively to guide behavior anyway. I think the same will be true online as well.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Good news for those with a religious faith in Sarah Palin: She’s done the impossible. Miracle of miracles, she’s made me -- the Antichrist of Silicon Valley -- fall in love with the Internet.
To celebrate the launch of the Nook, its new e-book reader, Barnes & Noble is giving away a free copy of Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point to the first 10,000 people who buy the $259 device when it is released late next month.
It’s one of the great ironies of the new Internet economy: As the value of digital content on the Internet falls toward zero because of its ubiquity, the value of real-time physical products increases. While this is promising news for musicians and writers, it’s no panacea for those filmmakers now desperately searching to discover a new business model to revitalize their old industry.
While Google introduces its new Chrome OS (which I'm hearing will be widely available in one year? Did I mishear that?), IBM announced 10 new products today to help companies using IBM System z mainframe technology.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
As enterprises leap into the Web 2.0 world of blogging, commenting, and social networking, just 'being there' won't deliver ROI. You may want a 'Web Evangelist' to systematically harvest the feedback in order to polish your product or service.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
Google's 'It Girl' talks about using personalized search to make sense of the mass of information on the Web – and how sometimes Google can appear to be semantically smarter than it really is.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
The FCC is throwing money at rural broadband empowerment, but it's dealing with the wrong problem. The real issue is how we get users who could get broadband but choose to reject it to change their minds. The answer lies with mobile technology – but it may surprise you!
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Industry initiatives and government stimulus funds are giving enterprise software vendors a great opportunity to help build out and manage smart grid technologies.
The problem with telepresence is that it's not universally accepted, because video calling isn't. While we can all do video calling, we also apparently worry too much about how we look. If we want HD telepresence in our future, we have to dress down, mess up our hair, and dive into our online life.
The US loses about $20 billion a year on pirated software, movies, and music. But public policy can help stem the tide of digital theft. For example, France has recently passed a 'three strikes and you’re out' law, whereby if after two warning letters an individual continues to download pirated software then his Internet access will be cut off. US policy makers should consider adopting similar policies.
Financial management planning does not need to include Voodoo economics, but it does help to tap into the knowledge base of your team through some sort of real-time system. We explore your options.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The successor to the BlackBerry Bold 9000 – the Bold 9700 – will be available soon in the US. Is it worth upgrading? Reiter's got one, and offers advice.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
