There were some Room For Debate articles pushing for the benefits of online anonymity that I wanted to talk about.
In Gabriella Coleman's "Anonymity Online Serves Us All" she hit a lot of important key points. People hear "online and anonymous" and they immediately assume the worst. It's nothing but aggression and hate examples that come to a person's mind, and while definitely a problem in our online culture, trolls are not the only ones who benefit from online anonymity.
Coleman brought up the example of medical websites that have the option of anonymity, which serves as a shield for mothers and those affected by medical issues to talk freely and openly without the worries of maintaining an online reputation. Yet another example stems from victims of hate and aggression speaking in an open forum without the pressures and stresses of their attackers finding them again.
Online anonymity, at the base of it all, is a way for people to discuss issues and the subject matter, leaving personal lives and social spheres out of the equation. It's a highlighting of pure ideas fostering stimulating conversations, and everyone is at the same level. It's about the ideas, not the people behind them. That's the purest form of anonymity, but the system has been taken advantage of, obviously.
The question is how far are media forums willing to go to protect groups from others? Is there a line media forums shouldn't be ale to cross when it comes to taking away free speech?
After reading Coleman's article myself, my perspective on the topic had been widened to include points I had not considered before. I cannot stress your point upon mentioning, "People hear 'online and anonymous' and they immediately assume the worst". There is so much bias in discussions of anonymity because of numerous people framing the problem as a matter of pro-troll vs anti-troll. Since no sane person will argue that trolling online is a good thing, many people fail to notice all of the benefits of anonymity they are threatening to strip away.
ReplyDelete