Dan Gilmore’s book We the Media focuses much attention on privacy and anonymity. That’s what I want to look at today, because it has significant implications in the age of social computing.
As Gilmore points out, “Technology has given us a world in which almost anyone can publish a credible-looking webpage” (174). I might extend this sentiment by proposing that technology increasingly allows us to have a credible-looking existence. By that, I mean that social computing has taken individual branding to a new level. Online tools are readily available to help create entire personas.
And people, many people, have done just that.
There are countless examples of folks who have made their voice known online and attracted hundreds, if not thousands of “followers.” It’s amazing how this has empowered so many who previously had no outlet. This has been both a good and a bad thing, although I think the general trend is toward the good.
As more and more people make their voice known, credibility becomes increasingly important, and as Gilmore suggests, credibility and anonymity are closely connected: “Credibility…comes from a willingness to stand behind [your] arguments when a compelling reason to stay anonymous is absent” (181).
Media discussion boards are good examples of online credibility. Take a peek at a Washington Post comment section after an article. You will see hundreds of angry, thoughtless diatribes about everything related or not related to the article. Of course mixed in, you’ll find thoughtful and serious posts; but these get crowded out under the din of the obnoxious, intentionally disruptive, anonymous poster—or the “troll”. I’d suggest that this is largely a function of the fact that the Post allows anyone to comment and comment anonymously.
On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal requires you to provide your real name and email address. To comment you must be a paying subscriber. The quality of these posts is generally more thoughtful, with the angry diatribe posts, few and far between. It seems that when people are forced to identify themselves in some way, the trollness subsides. Trollism is of the same family as mob behavior.
I’m not trying to suggest that we eliminate anonymity on the web anymore than we would in the real world. But that’s just the thing. If you had an entire conversation with someone and then learned that he had simply been playing an obnoxious devil’s advocate the whole time, it would be odd and uncomfortable. At the same time, most people don’t want to announce to world who they are when they’re at the grocery store.
Gilmore basically is basically suggesting that like everything else that’s new, the norms are now being established. As those norms solidify, one’s ability to be anonymous should be preserved, unless that person wants to “go public.” At the same time, if you really want to establish credibility, you need to lift the anonymous veil sooner rather than later.
Posts
