Jose
Arroyo
Professor
Werry
RWS
200 M & W 3:30-4:45
27
April 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 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 and being taught to be negative “towards news media and USA Today.” 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.
