I enjoyed the New York Times article written by Gabriella Coleman because it showed me a new perspective on anonymity from the third paragraph to the end that I hadn't realized prior to reading it. Before reading it, I didn't exactly understand the importance of being able to post anonymously. However I now see that it has many safety benefits in regards to victims of abuse/hate-crimes and whistle-blowers speaking out against topics that could put them in danger for speaking about. Furthermore, privacy is important in informing people on issues that are often too sensitive for everyday talk or even internet talk with your name attached to it. After clicking on the cyber link that talked about sensitive issues, it sent me to a forum about advice for mothers. With most, if not all, being very touchy subjects stock full with great advice for mothers, it further helped me to realize the importance of online anonymity.
However, with good things comes ways to abuse that good thing, which is then followed by the scramble for a solution to it. An example of a solution was Reddit's //r//science community's decision to use a verified user account program where you use your credentials to be labeled as an "educated opinion" aside from a random comment. While professional opinions may be very helpful I don't believe this is a good system because that classifies well-read commenters opinions who may not have a degree as being random. I believe (and I think it was brought up in class) that websites that utilize anonymous forums should be required to have an email or some form of identification of their users that is only held in their database and that is not capable of being viewed by people viewing users' account or comments (I am not a professional or very knowledgeable of computers and technology so forgive me if my opinion is very flawed). However I do believe this because in Citron's article there was a cyber link that stated that third party services are able to track what you said on an anonymous site whether or not your information was on it. Since it is already possible to track it, why not make it easier to maintain traceability if law enforcement needs it while still having anonymity on the forums.
Sebastian Rogers
I agree with your comment of websites having a database to keep the identification of the users hidden from the public, but available for the website's use. It very similar to choosing a username that can be whatever you what and it doesn't have to tie into your real identification. As you mentioned, I think it is easier this way to track down cyber harassers without using third party services because the website's database will give them the information they need.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read the article that required the proof of credentials, I supported it. If you're going to have intellectual conversations, might as well make sure that those talking have official research background, right? Wrong. I read the comment section and realized what you did, it would lead to the silencing of people who may have revolutionary ideas that can start something big just because they lacked credentials. I share the same views as you in that there should be some sort of identification for commenting even if it isn't made public. It is simply reassurance to the website that you are not a troll and will be easy to find if criminal prosecution were to be taken.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that reading the comment section changed my perspective is a testament to why we need well regulated comment sections that allow for intellectual ideas to be expressed freely without being covered by trolls and harassment.