Synthesis Prompt

Jose Arroyo

Professor Werry

RWS 200 M & W 3:30-4:45

6 April 2015

Synthesis Prompt

            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 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 civility. 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 conclude with a conclusion that in essence, will state which argument is most persuasive to me.

            First, I will began 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.

            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. He sees this as a shift in cultural values because the comment section was the birthplace for blogging but now since the cultural landscape has been altered he frowns upon how anonymity can have a negative effect on “entire social groups.” He discusses how this form of harassment and bullying excludes “female writers” who are one of the “brightest voices” in the public. The huge sociological effect of excluding a gender from public discourse evokes Stafford to put a halt to such vulgar and biased thinking done by trolls and make them realize that their actions are stunting the growth of society because without both genders working together the public discourse, that is so treasured today, can not be kept intact. The presumed effect on society evokes his audience to side with him and enable restrictions on anonymity to ensure that one gender is not left out of society.  The way public civility can be ensured to benefit the people is by “genuine transparency of identity,… tougher line on personal abuse and a greater weighting towards comments that actually expand discussion” as proposed by Stafford. He believes that by doing this; anonymity would not be sure of a problem but rather a way to have personal information at hand, if requested, and a better way of actually having comments that focus on the topic that encourages a more civil discussion. His proposed solutions contrast Zhuo’s main argument of how anonymity should be banned all together because she believed that it encouraged people to act uncivilly as well as unethically. They also contrast in that Zhuo uses more examples of real life people and incidents to make her argument more believable and persuasive as compared to Stafford. However, they both agree upon the idea of how anonymity does contribute to the different behaviors of people due to the fact that people feel that they are invisible and cannot be identified.

            However, in contrast in his 2011 Zephoria online article, “ Real Names Policies Are an Abuse of Power,” Boyd argues that anonymity should be protected and made available anywhere it could be made available. He starts off this article discusses 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. He uses quotes from average people to highlight the necessity of ensuring a form of concealment to protect themselves from people who try to harm them. His main point is intertwined with this example because he states how “real names policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people.” This quote reveals his true feelings about this “failed” attempt of trying to block anonymity because he is quick to point out the flaws of these major companies by stating how they do not actual care about the safety of their users but rather for their personal gains. He tries to insert himself as a defender for the people who support anonymity by advocating for it especially, if they use a “psuedonymity” to ensure their safety. He views safety as the number one component for the reason of anonymity because some individuals use anonymity as a tool to protect themselves from trolls or uncivil people. The aid to public civility is through the use of anonymity, as proposed by Boyd, by allowing people to hide and separate themselves from dangerous people. The way Boyd argues his main points and argument is most different from anyone else because he used tons of sarcasm and humor to convey his anger and dislike toward these “real name” policies. His hatred is exemplified through his use of capitalized words which makes his audience realize the passion he has for this topic which makes him more likely to gather more followers.

            The topic of online bullying and trolls is very controversial because there are two sides: anonymity or no anonymity. After reading various texts I sided with Zhuo and her argument of how anonymity should be banned because of the way she famed and organized her article. Her article flowed from each point to the next allowing each point have its fair amount of information and time. The use of real life incidents such like “ Alexis Pilkington” reveals the harsh and degrading abuse people receive from online trolls who have passed. But also people who do not own up to what they say are bashing people who are living and degrading them and sometimes even dehumanizing them. The ability to utilize pathos effectively evokes her audience to realize the brutality of these inconsiderate trolls and most likely side with her because she is able to side with her audiences’ emotions more effectively. So by utilizing real life examples and pathos Zhuo is more likely persuasive to her audience. So this is why I am more persuaded due to her ability to use these most effectively as compared to Boyd who uses too much sarcasm which only pertains to people who like that type of humor and Stafford who is more conservative and discredits him a lot.