Jose Arroyo
Professor Werry
RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45
4 May 2015
Essay
4: Entering the Conversation
Millions
of people are hooked onto social media because it has become a big part of
their lives. So it becomes apparent that everyone as seen comments on the
bottom of a YouTube page done by online “trolls.” These people infect online
forums with vulgar words and hate speech, which deteriorates “online civility.”
The topic has been such a talked about subject that even president Obama is
talking about. At the University of Michigan Spring Commencement in 2010 he
talks about civility and political participation in the world. He describes how
this virus is starting to “creep into the center of our discourse [and it]
closes the door to the possibility of compromise.” Even the president of the
United States us seeing how public incivility has began to stain conversations,
so that is why we must act now to change this downward trend. The inability to
produce a productive conservation in society is what hinders it from becoming a
well-rounded environment. The hefty
questions regarding trolling, harassment, and online bullying have raised
people’s attention in how to conduct appropriate civil discourse. In Jason
Wilson’s 2012 online article “ Beware attempts to suppress conflict on the
Internet,” he argues how the negative aspects of incivility and anonymity are
started by “astroturfers” who contaminate public discourse by utilizing
coercion to manipulate the public. But he quickly evokes his audience in
realizing that they should recognize how “conflict is a fundamental part of
democracy” and understand how as long as there is communication; conflict will
continue to persist. So there is the question: should anonymity be banned,
restricted, or made available to ensure that “proper” online civility is kept?
In this paper I will go in three specific texts that defend their own biases
and opinions on the topic of anonymity and or no anonymity. Then I will
carefully analyze each text to their own degree and point out the similarities
and differences between each text as well as their main points. After that I
will include evidence that I have found through my research on the topic of
anonymity to support my opinion on this highly debated issue. Finally, I will
conclude this paper with a summary of the overall paper.
Surrounding
the topic of anonymity versus no anonymity has become a very disputed topic
over the last couple of years. Some people believe that with anonymity people
tend to act completely differently when they are considered “invisible” rather
than being known. The ability of people to lose their morals and act unjustly
arouses the question: should anonymity be eliminated? According to Julie Zhuo
it should be. In her 2010 New York Times
article, “Where Anonymity breeds Contempt,” she argues how once people are
given anonymity their actions alter since they are no longer distinguishable.
Throughout her article she refers to many reliable authorities to ensure that
her readers believe her side of the debate. In contrast in his 2012 Sydney Morning Herald article, “Who are
these haters that poison the well of our discourse?” Andrew Stafford argues how
anonymity should not be banned but heavily restricted. He begins off his
article by describing how a small publication, called the Tribune, turned off their comments to disable people from posting
any type of remarks on their page. He reveals how many people do not seem to
care about the comment section on the “bottom half of the internet” because now
a days many people are so caught up their worlds they stay on a web page for
about 20 seconds to read or gather the information they need. Stafford’s
ideology highlights another viewpoint in this high volumed topic. As compared
to the other two previous writers, Boyd argues in his Zephoria online article, “ Real Names Policies Are an Abuse of
Power,” that anonymity should be protected and made available anywhere it could
be made available. He starts off his article discussing the highly debated
“nymwars” done by Google Plus to “enforce its real names policy.” The company
eliminated accounts that resisted cooperating with the new rule. This new rule
created such a spark about “pseudonymity” and why it should be allowed. Boyd
believes that “pseudonymity” is a must in society because some people need them
due to their jobs or abused pasts. These writers each have their own ideas and
opinions on the debate and continue to push for their side to become the
victor.
Despite
the on going debate surrounding public civility, I believe that Zhuo’s argument
was most persuasive and that is why I am siding with her argument. Through my
online research I was able to see how destructive and corrosive anonymity is to
public civility. Anonymity leads to how people are being negatively influenced
by these anonymous posts. In an online article written by Kevin Wallsten and
Melinda Tarsi they discuss how people are being taught to be negative “,
towards news media and USA Today,” due to the anonymous comments. Also
anonymity should be eliminated because everyone who posts something should own
up to his/her words and finally the way people actions are altered once they
know they are anonymous, dramatically influences them in committing unjustly
things.
First,
I would like to explore how negative anonymous comments influence people on the
Internet. In Wallsten and Tarsi’s 2014 Washington
Post article, “ It’s Time to End Anonymous Comments Sections,” they argue
how these comment sections on online forums and social media are a playground
for the most ruthless and harshest comments to be played with. These types of
comments would quickly tear down any promise for proper online civility and
will lead to hate speech. The evolution to hate speech will create people to become
angered towards the people who have harassed them on these comments section.
Most of these hate speech leads to “cyber bullying” that creates low self
esteem for the victims. Many argue how these comment forums actually lead to
positive and engaging conversations that can change a persons view on a
subject. But they are wrong. These comment sections are a “survival of the
fittest” with the winners being the attackers and the losers end up being the
beat down, torn apart people who become venerable to such criticism. This
creates a population is society that becomes very isolated who do not want to
associate themselves with other human beings due to the constant fear of being
harassed on. In a survey conducted by the two authors they tested to see how these
comments affect peoples emotions to the media but also on society. Around sixty
percent of people’s emotions took “ a turn for the worst” as their feelings
were brutally bashed on by online trolls who pounced on the chance to attack
someone. This online survey exemplifies entirely how emotionally unsafe it is
to keep these comment sections. Would you want to state your opinion on one of
these websites and be bashed on by millions of people just because your opinion
did match with theirs? I did not think so. So the need to eliminate these
comment sections should become a top priority because these are one of the
reasons why online civility has quickly deteriorated. Make the right choice and
spread the word.
The
morally right thing for anyone to do when they state anything is to own up to
their words. If you post something out there on social media have your face and
name to the words you just posted. People may agree or disagree with me, but I
will show you the importance of why you should. In her 2012 online article, “
New York Lawmakers Propose Bill to Ban Anonymous Online Speech,” Amanda Holpuch
sheds light how even upper echelon authorities want to rid themselves of
anonymity because they want to know who says what. She states in her article
how the lawmakers have proposed the bill to the senate to try and eliminate
anonymity. The lawmakers stated, “it is imperative that the legislature put in
place some type of safeguard to prevent people from sing the Internet’s cloak
on anonymity to bully our children and make false accusations against local
business and elected officials.” The desire expressed in this quote stresses
the importance to eliminate the cloak of anonymity because in reality anonymity
causes much more harm than good. The possibility of having your child being a
victim of trolling or online bullying is a scary thought.
The
dreaded thought of being bullied can become a reality in a very short amount of
time. I, for one, have been a victim of online bullying. I was around 12 years
old and I was about to start my second year at my old middle school. I was a
little heavier than most boys at my age but at that time I did not seem to
notice the difference. But others did. As Facebook started to become popular my
friend Jonathan and I made a Facebook. The first “selfie” I took of myself was
for my profile picture, to ensure to everyone that I was the proper Jose
Arroyo. It was probably the worst mistake I ever did. The picture was
“horrendous” as one of my supposedly “friends” commented underneath the
picture. As the day progressed I saw more and more comments underneath my
picture that only dehumanized me as a person. I started to partake hate speech
against these trolls, but only to find out I was never winning because there
was one of me and forty of them. The unwanted feeling to go to school was never
ending and I simply did not want to be seen by anyone, because to everyone I
was considered “fat.” I started to pay attention to these trolls and became
their victim. My personal anecdote is a prime example of how online comment
sections should be eliminated because if they were I would not have been able
to experience what I experienced when I was in seventh grade.
Lastly,
I will end with a writer who is against anonymity and thinks it should be
banned. In Julie Zhuo’s 2010 New York
Times article, “Where Anonymity breeds Contempt,” she argues how once
people are given anonymity their actions alter since they are no longer
distinguishable. Throughout her article she refers to many accountable authorities
to ensure that her readers believe her side of the debate. By alluding to
Plato’s “ring of Gyges” Zhuo is illustrating how many people feel “invisible”
when they are no longer being accountable for their actions. The ability to
conceal their identity leads to unregularly behavior and the loss of morals. If
people began to lose their morals she believes it will lead to unjustly
behavior onto society. An example of how anonymity is used to its most ruthless
way is when “trolls descended on her online tribute page to post picture of
nooses…” reveals how many teenagers took the opening to act unmorally since
they knew no one knew they were posting things. The inability to understand the
severity of their careless actions cuases these “tolls” continues to hunt and
prey on vulnerable Internet websites to inject their unethical behavior. Zhuo
uses the jargon of “online disinhibition effect” to reveal how people, no
matter how good of a person they are, act in sure dishonorable ways due to the
sense of being concealed and unnoticed. The specific jargon of how people
behave leads to how “50 states now have stalking, bullying, or harassment laws
that explicitly include electronic forms of communication.” The states action
to cut down this abuse highlights one of Zhuo’s rebuttals of how to stop
anonymity with a real name policy but she quickly acknowledges how “names and
e-mail addresses can be faked.” This
acknowledgment to her opposing side increases her reputation with her audience
and makes them realize she knows the other side to the debate. By boosting her
ethos she swiftly moves and describes her three points of solutions to stop
trolls from behaving unethically on web forums. By “, raising barriers to
posting bad comments,” and “letting trollish ones sink into oblivion” points
out her two prime solutions to eliminating the uncalled for behavior of
anonymous trolls. She also believes by applying more social pressure onto these
self-proclaimed trolls they will cease to exist because their friends would see
what they would be posting. The knowing of their friends seeing what type of
unethical behavior they possess makes trolls halt and think twice before
commenting on a post, which provides a better environment for public civility.
The ability to expose one self on social media is safe guarded with the slow
process of weeding out trolls by eliminating anonymity according to Zhuo.
As
we browse the Internet and leave comments on things we should ask ourselves: are
we offending anyone with what I am saying? We, as a society, should become more
aware to what we are saying or posting. There are many people who do not
believe anonymity should be banned and there are others who believe it should
not be banned. I am one for that it should be banned for all the negative
aspects that it brings with it. Such as the possibility of cyber bullying and
the way people act unmorally due to being considered “invisible.” We need to
end anonymity now before it corrupts and ends all possible hope for good online
civility.
