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
It is common now to see young students
spending hours and hours on some exchange internet websites. In fact, this new
trend really scares me. They are meant to unite people but they do the contrary.
As an educator, I think kids need more curricula on media literacy in general
and awareness in internet anonymity in particular. However, if they are taught
to keep internet anonymity, we are teaching them tell lies, which are banned in
all their forms. Now what is the bottom line? Should we tell them that all
internet users are phony, and so must they as well with the view of protecting
themselves? I am afraid that will not solve the problem in that it increases
the number of internet users with false identity because whoever around the
game will be addicted, and will find it legitimate to play back once trapped.
Or they will do it with the view of “protecting” themselves.
My name is not Najma. I prefere writing anonymously for security reasons. I hope that I will one day be able to use my real name, since I'm really hating Najma for getting all the credit! I'm proud of being a Moslawi, but like the fact that I was born in Baghdad: 1988, April, 23rd. But I'm originally from Mosul. All of my mother's family members were living in Baghdad since my grandpa moved to Baghdad in 1967 until 2003. I'm proud of being a Moslawi, but like the fact that I was born in Baghdad, beautiful (or was beautiful) Baghdad..
On the Book Project Above is a photo of the last two packages of books I have received. Five of them will be at the associate dean's office first thing tomorrow, and two (The Calculus and the Electronic Devices books) will accompany me through the rest of the year only to end up at the associate dean's office on their way to the library by the end of the year. Also an Iraqi student studying in Canada has also been of great help to the project The address you should use for sending the books is: The head of the civil engineering department [E-mail me to get names] University of Mosul College of Engineering Civil engineering department Mosul - Iraq
I will get mom to spend some more time to choose more books and magazine subscriptions maybe..
Please feel free to spread news about the project, or contact whomever you can. If there's anything else that needs to be explained, tell me, and I'll try to put more details about that.
A BIG thank you to all of you who have helped by either buying books or donating money to the project.
WE appreciate it.
Thanks for your great reply. I think the very caption of the post has given us enough information as to the writer's bias in his analysis. By saying internet anonymity is a curse and not even mentioned the good side of being anonymous on the web is simlpy unaccepatable.
We are all aware of the crimes and mishaps committed by 'unknow' people on the web but that should not thwart people from frely expression their views on issues that they may not have the courage to express in the real life. What would happen to the internet if we take away all those user generated contents??
I do agree with you that it's just an issue of educating people on how they should be accountable of their actions on the internet. I came across these two posts and was really impressed with the approach of the writers:
Anonymity, as you say, is causing great illnesses throughout the internet community. But anonymity also provides comfort, it allows some people to express what they really think, like, see.
It's not as common, or useful, in America since we don't have as many restrictions as some other countries. But let's think of someone in Afghanistan or some other country, anonymity is the only hope they have to express their beliefs.
We need to teach 'generation facebook' of the advantages of the internet, but also, and most importantly, the many disadvantages and problems.
In real life you are very well known
(hopefully) by a select group of people and to a central agent of authority.
Your anonymity grows with further people are from you. When you travel to a
distant location you carry a passport that verified your identity to those with
whom you want to become acquainted. So there are layers or levels of anonymity
that function naturally in society and means and mechanisms that control the
boundary between being known and being anonymous. The internet has kludgy means
of mimicking the social aspects of community and authority, but they were
developed without a holistic understanding of all the issues that are part of
the complex web of social interactions we have developed over millennia.
Sociologists might give us some guidance on
how this should work. But I don't trust them because they often are really
trying to engineer society to reflect their desires rather than study a living
and very complex organism to understand it with the respect it deserves. (yes,
that was a bit of rant)
The question raised is natural and logical. But the problem is not new to Web 2.0. It has occurred with consistent frequency ever since the first bumpkin fell off the turnip wagon...
Throughout history the line of misrepresentation between anonymity and personal trust has fallen in physical presence (the classic confidence game), mail, telegraph, telephone, even mass media. With each new medium, our species agonizes again over this question of what new opportunities exist to spam and scam. New rules emerge to define who we trust, when we trust, how we trust. Such will also emerge for the Public Network even though this silliness has been going on since the first BBS two decades ago...
There is no separate morality or peril for the Internet. If we have taught our children correctly in all other matters, they will know how to behave on and off line. Better that we teach them how to protect themselves...
And our legislators can continue to enact laws that serve no one but themselves. Where the freedom of the Public Network is concerned, it is not the government I fear...
That's the issue, abdlah. I do agree there should be protection for children, but not anominity for adults. Everything is part of the infamous permanent record once it goes on the Internet. Having been accused of posting things I haven't, I've always thought it best to only post under my name. I suppose, as has been said here, others can post as me, further complicating what's real and what isn't. I don't think there is a simple answer to this issue (as evidenced by the thoughtful and long reply posts).
I feel that most people who use chat rooms and blogs have a concern with identity theft more than an evil intent when they use false names and pics. I believe that it is up to the sites administrators to make it safer for the users by qualifying the users true ID, this can be done with today's technology. Yes it may take a user longer to join and they may find it frustrating, but what do most criminals do when the going gets rough, they get going. We just need to stop making it easy, and make it safer. Easy is great, crooks love it and thrive on it, so put in a few more steps to get safer user IDs, our children are worth it.
I am also a strong believer in the fact that security and most importantly moral beliefs start in the home, get over your own childhood woes and think about the kids future. There future is ours too, stop being the friend and be a parent. I also say to the courts, c'mon, yes it is the first amendment right to say what we want but it dose not give us the right to slander and then hide behind a false ID. False IDs isn't that a form of terrorism?
So, we need to teach our children safe ways to use the internet, morals, and how to get along with everyone. And the Internet needs to establish safer protocals in user inception.
Teach the children right from wrong, protect your Identity, believe in GOD and our country, go green, and be safe. Bill
While going through the post , one idea clicked my mind and I implemented a bit of it and the other bit is not justified , a sort of crime , a negative approach , a nuisance , a harm and the list goes on...
What I did?
I clicked on the picture of Andrew and saved it. Why? I liked his thinkings and apart from that I want to make an album of persons with their thoughts so that I could even recall when I refer it (this idea came now only and I think I am not interested in implementing it) .Nice. No harm, great idea, a positive thing to do so that you can remember the views and even recognize the person who first initiated it.No harm,Right??So if the identity ( in this case name) is not correct how could I know if the person in the picture is Andrew or not? Is this pic of Andrew?And is the views of a person named Andrew?So , we should give the correct identity because there is no harm, Fine.
Here we contact each other by posting a comment. There is no need of personal identification correct or false no(Hope all have the correct identity , many of us have not given their pics but it is not an issue because we give importance to information).
There is another approach and obviously the other half which I did not do. I saved the pics and open any other networking site , give the name as XYZ , some PQR address, and some rubbish views. Then What?
If sometimes Andrew come across that site and sees the name , and the views , what will be his next move?What is the first thought comes in his mind?Will he enjoy surfing anymore? Tensed, Right?
Andrew is not tensed , why , he has seen lots of such things---Internet Anonymity. Someone without any intension submitted his pics and just for fun given some views.That person not necessarily his friend or enemy , just a net surfer has did it without any particular intention to harm Andrew?Cool.
But if something absurd is there which is not bearable Andrew will loose temper. He will file cases , and if somebody points him for the cause he will try to convince others that he has not did it and from now onwards he will not submit his pics on the net. A bit tensed?
The well awareness plays a major role. We know someone else could do a mischevious act on our behalf. This should be known to everyone so that if certain news could be there we should act accordingly.
If we consider Megan Meier, she could not bear it and she hung herself. For the act of others mischieve she had to suffer. What would be the scenario if she could resist it calm herself , know about this threats and everyone by her side to give her strength(I am taking this case just for an example).
Take the case of the Law students. They filed a complaint against the administrators of the site. Why? Why did they not take their life? They were aware of the nuisances on the websites. AWAREness.
So, sometimes it is fine of being anonymous. Let your children know that there are such threats on the internet, so be cautious while giving your identity, chating to an online friend, give the credit cards information.
Who knows the person you are chating online with is not a person from other continent but a neighbours of yours who try to misguide you or it can be anything. Being a responsible parent now it is the time to make them aware of the ills of internet so that they will be cautious.
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.
The problem with much analysis of the old-versus-new media wars (including some of my own, I confess) is that we always assume that there’s a moral struggle going on, that the real battle is between fairness and injustice, and that, in the best Hollywood tradition, good will eventually triumph over evil.
In an age of a myriad of media devices and platforms, what does the digital consumer want? The answer, in a word, is simplicity. When a consumer buys a book, a movie, a magazine, or a musical track, they want to watch, read, and listen to their product on every device and platform -- from their two-channel hi-fi to their home theater-powered television to their Internet-enabled computer to their 3G smartphone to their revolutionary new touch tablet.
Thus reads a thesis from American political scientist Robert Kagan, meaning that Americans are intrinsically warlike while Europeans are the natural pacifiers; Americans destroy things and Europeans fix them.
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.
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.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
