Opposition to Opaque Usernames
The Topic
The US supreme court has frequently protected anonymous
speech under the 1st amendment. A frequently cited example of this
is McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,
where Margaret McIntyre passed out pamphlets opposing a proposed school
tax. She was sued by the Ohio Elections Commission for not including her name
and address on said pamphlets. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Margaret’s
favor.
Opposition to Anonymity
Several internet entities, such as Facebook, Google, and
several news sites, oppose the use of opaque usernames in account creation to
preserve the integrity of the site and maintain a sense of accountability for one’s
actions. Additionally, law enforcement cannot prosecute those in harassment or
defamation cases when the guilty party’s real identity is masked. Restraining
orders are all but useless, and moderation is left to the site owners (and
those that consider themselves “”bastions of free speech”” like Reddit, Yik
Yak, etc. will do little in terms of moderation).
The issue of anonymity is not completely a digital one.
Harvey Weinstein is currently being sued by an anonymous actress—Jane Doe. His
representatives are frustrated, saying that he “can’t speak to anonymous
allegations.” Many states—primarily California—allow plaintiffs to litigate
under a pseudonym. In Does v. Advanced Textiles
(2000), the US circuit Court devised a test to discern whether a plaintiff’s anonymity is justifiable.
1. If
a plaintiff is at risk of retaliation (ex: suing an employer),
2. If
revealing the plaintiff’s name would violate their privacy in a personal matter,
and
3. If
the plaintiff would be exposed to criminal prosecution by revealing their name.
Support of Anonymity
I personally support the use of anonymity online. In my
experience, the ability to use opaque usernames has aided me in avoiding harassment
in ways I couldn’t before. While Facebook holds that its users must remain
transparent to maintain accountability, I’ve found that it simply makes it
easier for bullies in real life to track me down. For example, I had issues
when I was 13 with an adult attempting to groom me over Skype. While I didn’t
share any of my information with him directly, he was able to find my facebook
account through Skype, finding both my real name and location. There was
nothing we could do other than close my Facebook and give empty threats of
legal action. Now, I exclusively use sites that either don’t require my name
(Tumblr, DeviantArt, etc.) or ones that can be tricked with a fake name (Google
has no character restrictions for its names, so you can enter a pseudonym for the
first name and a period for the last name.)
Also, retaliation against anonymous individuals may be
difficult, but not impossible. YouTuber Chrissy Chambers was the first to
successfully sue her former partner for harassment and misuse of private
information after he recorded and uploaded seven videos of them having sex
under a pseudonym. However, Chambers was able to reach a settlement with her
partner, the terms of which dictate that she cannot share either his name or
the amount awarded to her. While the UK ha made revenge porn illegal in April
2015, the videos were uploaded in 2011, making that law inapplicable.
Ultimately, I believe that where the law falls flat,
moderation of anonymous content online falls to both site owners and peers. A
real-name policy is often ineffective and easily circumvented, leaving honest
individuals open to harassment.
Relevant Links
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/youtube-star-chrissy-chambers-wins-damages-in-landmark-uk-revenge-porn-case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_v._Ohio_Elections_Commission
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1013945.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-weinstein-lawsuit/harvey-weinstein-sued-by-actress-who-claims-he-raped-her-in-2016-idUSKBN1DF0H5
Relevant Links
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/youtube-star-chrissy-chambers-wins-damages-in-landmark-uk-revenge-porn-case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_v._Ohio_Elections_Commission
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1013945.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-weinstein-lawsuit/harvey-weinstein-sued-by-actress-who-claims-he-raped-her-in-2016-idUSKBN1DF0H5
sorry, I know that this is a few hours late--I overslept :'(
I also support the use of anonymous usernames online. First and foremost, I think these names allow people to exercise their right of free speech. Anonymous user names enable people to express their opinions while keeping their identity private, which is an ability that, in my opinion, outweighs the potential for people to abuse the power of anonymity. To me this relates to our discussion and readings on having "nothing to hide." When someone claims they have nothing to hide they are showing complacency toward the privacy of their future selves, and of their fellow citizens. In much the same way, people that argue against the option to have anonymous online usernames are showing complacency toward the right of free speech. I do recognize that anonymous usernames cannot fully protect an individual, as Ethan's experience showed, and I recognize that anonymous usernames create a way for people to troll, harass, and endanger other users. Due to this potential threat I think companies like Facebook should be able to ask their users to use their true names if people want their services, but even then, anonymous names are not hard to create.
ReplyDeleteLike Lily and Ethan, I also support the use of anonymous identities. I frequent Reddit, and a significant portion of the site's culture revolves around the ability to share opinions in a truly anonymous manner. Many users create "throwaways", or secondary accounts to conceal their identity even further. Furthermore, real name policies similar to those implemented by Facebook and Google do almost nothing to ensure accounts are genuine. For example, when I was 12 I really wanted a Facebook account to use for website sign-ins and various games; however, my parents wouldn't allow me to create one because I was still underage. Similar to Ethan and the falsification of Google account information, I created a Facebook account under the name "Bob Jones". I was able to create a Facebook account without any type of real verification and in a way that preserved my anonymity. The ability of myself and others to create fake accounts undermines the integrity of the argument for real name accounts. In my experience, even if all "anonymous" accounts were forcibly converted into real name accounts, people who wanted to preserve their anonymity would simply create new accounts under false names.
ReplyDelete*Disclaimer* - Founding Fathers history geek post coming!
ReplyDeleteFrom Benjamin Franklin's famous "Mrs. Silence Dogood" letters published in the New-England Courant to the essays by "A Pennsylvania Farmer" that boosted Mr. John Dickinson to a position in the Continental Congress, anonymous identifiers are - in my mind - a fundamental piece of democracy. To express one's opinions in the cloak of a pseudonym is to have a shield in one's criticism of the powers that be. The protection of free speech far outweighs the need to attribute all that is said to the person who said it. To put a spin on a famous quotation: "I may disagree with what you say; but I will defend to the death your right to say it ... And to say it anonymously!" I believe the potential cost of, at times, not knowing who said what is worth the protection of free speech anonymity provides.
I believe that anonymity is important to free speech because without the right to remain anonymous someone may feel the need to censor their own speech if they hold unpopular opinions or beliefs. The ability to remain anonymous, both online and in real life, allows us to voice our opinions without repercussion. In addition, I also agree with some of the other posts that rules or regulations against anonymity are near impossible to enforce and thus only curtail the rights of those who follow these rules. That being said, until I read the post I was not aware that someone can file suit under an anonymous name. My initial though on this is that it wouldn’t fall under the rights of freedom of speech. In the case mentioned it was said that it’s difficult to “speak to anonymous allegations” and I can see their point. In another highly publicized story of late, the comedian Aziz Ansari was anonymously accused of sexual assault, not in a legal filing, but simply on the public stage of the internet. Although it seems little will come of these accusations in the end, in an age when such anonymous accusation can derail a career, such matters should not be taken lightly. In addition, the continued anonymity of the accuser would make it difficult to file a slander lawsuit or take really any action in response to such a claim.
ReplyDeleteAlong with many of my classmates I believe that anonymity is an integral part of free speech. Personally, I put way too much value on people’s opinions of me based on my views, so it’s often hard for me to really speak my mind. Anonymity gives me the freedom to do that without fear of judgement. Having an opportunity to really speak my mind on things I’m passionate about without fear of repercussions is an incredibly freeing feeling. However, I also believe that anonymity is something that needs to be used responsibly. When I was in high school the app Ask.fm became popular. It allowed people to ask whatever questions they wanted to another individual anonymously, but I saw a lot of cyber bullying and nasty things being said under the cover of anonymity.
ReplyDeleteHonestly I don't agree with the idea of anonymity at all. I think its just a bunch of people who are trying to say obnoxious boisterous ideas that they don't want to come back to them. Most people using anonymous usernames are trying to hide something. I believe It goes back to the general kid saying "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say It at all". Having an anonymous name basically gets rid of this rule becauset you can say whatever you want without any repercussions. I don't believe this is okay at all as It leads to hurt feelings, cyberbuling, etc. Nothing good comes out of this at all and trolling is around because of this. As to court cases and anonymity its once again people trying to hide. They don't want the person they prosecute to be upset or ruin their friendship which is just silly. You can't do something mean to someone and get away with It just because they don't know that its you. I feel as though its not right and that people need to grow up and take the consequences for their actions.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that people should be given a choice on whether or not to be anonymous online. While it is true that some people may use anonymous names as a way to attack other individuals without experiencing any negative repercussions, the removal of anonymous names could result in just as many innocent people becoming targets due to their ideology. The internet has become an effective tool at tracking down people's names and locations, which could easily lead to worst case scenarios such as attacks or stalking. There are many examples of individuals who use names and addresses gathered online to ruin people's lives over differing opinions. If everyone were to remain anonymous, a person would be able to express themselves freely without fear or real life repercussions. This could be seen positively and negatively. On the one hand, it could help people open up and express themselves in ways they were too nervous to try in real life. On the other hand, cyber-bullying would be almost impossible to prevent. I do think there could be methods to avoid problems with anonymity, so that cyberbullies could not run rampant. For example, maybe websites would require the real life name and email, so if a user begins to cyber-bully they could be discovered and banned.
ReplyDeleteThe right to remain anonymous maintains potential benefits and consequences. While reading on this, I do maintain some concerns surrounding anonymity online but ultimately support anonymity. As mentioned by others, the ability to remain anonymous enables individuals to share opinions, beliefs, etc. without fearing retribution for those beliefs. It cultivates freedom of speech, but that does not come without consequences. While there are consequences such as cyberbullying, anonymity is relevant to our society and should not be taken away. Censorship is at play when anonymity is taken away. We can see that anonymity maintains a long history back to our founding fathers, for example, the Federalist papers were written under pseudonyms. There are many challenges surrounding anonymity, and while the unpopular speech is a part of that reality I argue that it the advantages of the right to freedom of speech outweighs the disadvantages and support anonymity.
ReplyDeleteWhile anonymity online may promote free speech and bring less popular or more controversial views into public discussion, there is also inherent danger in this anonymity. With anonymity, online users are able to promote fear and falsehoods under an anonymous identity or an assumed identity. We saw precisely this leading up to the 2016 presidential election where 677,000 people interacted Twitter accounts later identified as "potential pieces of a propaganda effort by the Russian government."
ReplyDeleteI feel as though using an anonymous username on any website give people a false sense of security from the scrutiny of others. Although people can't see your real name, you can probably be traced via the government if you are posting things that you shouldn't be. Otherwise I feel as though anonymity should be an option to everyone and I really see no problem with it. People should be able to share their opinions without feeling like they have to hide who they are for fear of being attacked, but for those who are this is a good way to still be able to share your feelings.
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with Ethan here, in most cases one should have the right to anonymity – especially online. However, I'm not a libertarian but I don't believe it should be the government's job to dictate this. I think the right to whether or not an individual can be anonymous should be decided by the organization to which one joins, which seems to be the how it works now. On some websites it makes sense; Facebook for example, is a platform based on having an online version of one's self. On some other sites, it doesn't always make sense; Tumblr for instance, is more about shareable content rather than personal information, making it unnecessary to be personal. Overall, it's up to the website or platform, as it should be. It's their site, and there are advantages and disadvantages that come with both requiring and not requiring users to reveal their true names, like Ethan wrote about in this post.
ReplyDelete