Anonymity Undone

Grant Tabler
Ian Reilly
MDST 2020
15 November 2010

Anonymity Undone

The Internet has long been seen as a medium of anonymity and freedom. With the lack of governing or regulations it has become an area of free expression. However, with this freedom of anonymous speech and expression comes the darker side of anonymity. The Internet also allows for people to post slanderous or hateful things with complete freedom and safety. However, recently Blizzard Entertainment decided to take a stand against this kind of behaviour on their enormous gaming forum for the game World of Warcraft. They proposed a system which would link the first and last name from each player’s account information to all posts made on these forums. The response was an outcry from the community to cancel this change. This proposed change encapsulates many of the debates about the decentralized, anonymous model of communication on the internet as a whole, with larger implications of accountability in other aspects of life. This paper intends to highlight some of the key debates related to this change and explore the larger implications this change holds for accountability in other aspects of our lives.



To put this change in context, let us first examine a story with similar traits. Imagine there was a massive building created for public discourse. It would be a place where people could come from anywhere to talk anonymously in groups, large or small, about various issues. However, since no one was required to identify themselves, vandalism started to crop up around the building. More and more the area became targeted by vandals that could not be identified because of their anonymity. Due to this, the ruling body of this building decided to mandate that everyone would have to start wearing name tags, with their first and last name displayed at all times. The idea was to eliminate the veil protecting the vandals, though the participants saw it differently. Comments were made stating that this would lead to identity theft, stalking, and damage to one’s reputation outside the area. Was it right to sacrifice anonymity for accountability? This situation was what faced Blizzard when they attempted to implement a similar naming system on one of the largest gaming forums on the internet. This decision is a microcosm with the debate of decentralization on the internet as a whole.

Decentralization is “the delegation of power from a central authority to regional and local authorities” (“Decentralization”). In internet communication it is meant to level the playing field for ideas, so that no one idea can be any more or less valid than any other based on its source. Most of our social interactions are founded in a centralized nature through our own biases and opinions. We give more merit to some and less to others, based on a myriad of determiners such as past experiences and stereotypes. Decentralization represents the stripping of such biases from our understanding of others. If someone says something anonymously, we are forced to evaluate the comment and the person in a different way than we may have if we were aware of the speaker’s identity. Though for anonymity to be reached it does not require a masking of one’s name and details. Instead it is based on their consistent representation. If we have contact with someone under a consistent identity, even if a false identity we can begin to formulate an opinion of them and a bias system for evaluating their comments. Decentralization can only exist if the participants are without a frame of reference for the other participants. Once one acquires a consistent representation of that person, one cannot remain totally unbiased of them, and the system is no longer decentralized (Kahai 451).

Even when remaining unknown, if one uses a consistent identifier, the persona gains characteristics in the minds of others. Although at any one occurrence their opinions might remain equal in value, once the representation is known consistently, past opinions add or detract value from the speaker. This ruins the equality of a decentralized model. Therefore, in the current system of Blizzard forums, someone can post as whichever character they own. They can post consistently and become known, or create new unknown characters to post anonymously. However, were the system using real names implemented, the user would have all their posts labeled with a consistent name. Though the former system allows for one to choose to be anonymous or not, the latter system gives the user no such choice (“Battle.net Update: Upcoming Changes to Forums”). Showing people’s real names also has larger consequences dealing with racism.

Racism can come into play on this type of forum system because people in an environment with real names as identifiers can be verbally attacked for their differences. With identifiable last names people could make judgements based on stereotypes. Those with bigoted views against Islam could lash out against posters named Muhammad, or players could draw on the established bias of Chinese players being sweatshop workers forced to play the game (Nakamura 130). However, the reprisal to this is one that did not exist before such a unified identification system existed. Players who wish to make bigoted comments against some group will be identifiable by their real names. So although players are no longer able to hide their characteristics from scrutiny, so too are players unable to use anonymity as a veil from which to hurl insults at these groups.

There is however one caveat to this plan of accountability. This public exhibition of one player’s racist viewpoints only harms their reputation if they have another identity they are trying to protect. If the racist player has no vested interest in intelligent discourse on the forum, then they have nothing to lose by being identified as a bigot (Hardaker 220). So although this method of accountability does curtail those players who wish to be both a contributor and a slanderer, it does little to directly stop those who have no other purpose to their posting.

To contextualize another issue in this debate, I pose another extrapolative story regarding fears associated with accountability on the internet as a whole. Imagine if by some governmental accord, all internet access worldwide would require a log-in with one’s full name. Imagine everything one did online, from posting on any forum, to commenting on youtube, tweeting, digging, using reddit, posting mashups, culture jamming, imagine if all personal output now had the person’s first and last name tagged to it. This could be done in the name of, “removing the veil of anonymity typical to online dialogue.” (“Battle.net Update: Upcoming Changes to Forums”) This could be implemented with the intentions of strengthening communal bonds amongst internet users, and creating a more accountable internet society. However, people would greet this change with hostility, because it is understood that on the internet one can post and participate in relative anonymity. Such a radical change to the societal norm would cause many to react in a way similar to that of the users of the blizzard forums. They too were threatened with the loss of their anonymity. They were worried about identity theft, stalking and physical assaults, and a loss of reputation. (“Battle.net Update: Upcoming Changes to Forums”)

The first two of these fears are extrapolations of what a malicious person may do with access to more of their personal information. The third primary fear brought up by users had more to do with their own behaviour. This fear was illustrated with posts like “I keep my work separate from my play. I don't need employers or clients finding BNet rants when they Goggle me” (“Battle.net Update: Upcoming Changes to Forums”). And “Nor would I want my boss or co-worker to be able to google me and see that I may have done some posting at work (which I am doing right now in fact)” (“Battle.net Update: Upcoming Changes to Forums”). Here we see that people are worried that others in the “real world” might find out about how they act when anonymous. The most interesting part of this is the lack of accountability. The onus is put on Blizzard for revealing that this person rants on a gaming forum or posts from work, rather than on the person who is doing it. Somehow it becomes the forum’s fault that this person is unable to control their outbursts, however the poster believes themself unaccountable.

This brings us to the core issue of this debate of anonymity, the issue of accountability. Accountability has two aspects to it here. Firstly it is used to tie people to their comments. If someone wants to speak out against something, either as slander, or merely in voicing an unpopular opinion, they will have this comment associated to them for better or worse. Though this allows for both intelligent discourse, and bigotry, freedom of speech dictates that silencing one party requires silencing both.

The second aspect of accountability in this situation is the responsibility for ones actions and their consequences. There are those who gripe about Blizzard revealing them, and allowing others to suddenly ‘google’ everything about them. The onus is again put on Blizzard for changing their policies, and not on the user for callously spewing their information all across the internet. The player fails to be accountable for the spread of their data, instead deferring to blizzard to handle the user’s security. Just like the earlier user examples, they do not see it as their fault for doing things they would regret coming to light; it is instead Blizzard’s fault for exposing this to the world, forcing them to be accountable for their actions.

The question raised by all of this is: is this system of decentralization and anonymity, which has become the standard for the internet, the system that best serves our interests? Or should we be moving towards a system that better incorporates personal accountability and not deference to others to protect our ideas? I ask you to imagine once more an extrapolative situation. What if the entire world were forced to be consistently identifiable? Imagine if everyone were imprinted with a sort of digital nametag, which was always visible when in public. Anyone who decided to buy something at a store, question government policies, or rob a bank, would be easily identifiable via a nameplate they could not hide. This could cut down on crime, and strengthen communal bonds, though would this be an infringement on freedoms that we have come to accept? This system of total accountability seems to assume we are all criminal and, if adopted in some governments, could allow for easier censorship and control. So the real decision regarding a balance of anonymity and accountability is: should the responsibility for security fall on the individual, or its ruling body?

-30-

Bibliography

"Battle.net Update: Upcoming Changes to Forums." 06 Jul 2010. Online Posting to World of Warcraft Forums. Web. 15 Nov 2010

"Decentralization." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010. Web.

Hardaker, Claire. "Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions." Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 6.2 (2010): 215-242. Web. 16 Oct 2010.

Doig, Will. "Homophobosphere." Advocate February-March 2008: n. pag. Web. 16 Oct 2010.

Levin, Jane. "Internet Censorship: The Debate Rages On." Screen Education 59 (2009): 46-51. Web. 13 Oct 2010.

Kahai, Surinder. "Anonymity and Counter-Normative Arguments in Computer-Mediated Discussions." Group & Organization Management 34.4 (2009): 449-478. Web. 13 Oct 2010.

Nakamura, Lisa. "Don’t Hate the Player, Hate the Game: The Racialization of Labor in World of Warcraft." Critical Studies in Media Communication 26.2 (2009): 128-144. Web. 14 Oct 2010.

Pissarra, João, and Jorge Jesuino. "Idea generation through computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity." Journal of Managerial Psychology 20.3 (2005): 275-291. Web. 14 Oct 2010.

Salter, Michael, and Chris Bryden. "I can see you: harassment and stalking on the Internet." Information & Communications Technology Law 18.2 (2009): 99-122. Web. 15 Oct 2010.

Wang, Zuoming. "Anonymity Effects and Implications in the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation: From Crowd to Computer-Mediated Communication." Conference Papers -- International Communication Association (2007): 1-27. Web. 18 Oct 2010.