Pseudonymous social media handles and platforms that encourage them amplify the issues of fake news
How do you behave when no one is watching you? We all remember a classroom scene from our childhood. While the teacher was busy writing something on the board, someone would throw a paper plane at the board. The fiery teacher looked back and asked who did it and the class remained silent. Similarly, in a crowded auditorium, sometimes someone makes sarcastic remarks and the people on the stage do not know who disturbed the peace.
reason for anonymity
More or less how anonymity works on social media. The most common types of anonymity include the use of a pseudonym, fake photos or the lack of one, and nothing specific in the bio. The opposite is true when a person uses their actual first name and last name, provides their designation and company name, and states their interests. In such cases, any Google may ask that combination to identify the real person, e.g., LinkedIn.
Read also | 28% of social media users have anonymous profiles: Survey
Security researchers define anonymity as ‘the unknown within a set of subjects’. But the identity is not that linear. Some may only use the first name and some may not – they are still anonymous. Some people may use pseudonyms and hide their identity but leave traces of identifiable information through their content. Identity is also linked to patterns of behavior that can emerge from what is shared over time. The deeper question is why do people want to remain anonymous on social media?
The most well-known reason for anonymity is being able to speak the truth against vindictive governments. But no matter how hard one tries, governments these days may be able to trace that person with enormous resources.
Another reason for seeking anonymity is the eagerness to seek past experiences (eg victim of harassment) or to choose non-heterogeneous identities or to participate in online conversations without documenting deeply personal experiences that may lead to wider judgment by others. may be subject to.
Yet another common reason for seeking anonymity online is to not allow ideas to tag the real person being talked about in the offline world.
And this is where the problem starts. When the anonymity seeker knows that their real world (at home, workplace, neighborhood, immediate social setting) will not be affected, they seem less hesitant and adventurous about what they share and thus How to form an opinion It’s like ‘How do you behave when you know no one is watching you?’ online equivalent. When such thoughts are being shared by people who hide their identities, and especially when these thoughts are about others who have not opted out of anonymity online, there is an communicative imbalance that can lead to that crowded room. Comes back to the settings I mentioned earlier.
We could argue that ideally, we only see the opinion of anonymous handles; That the person’s decision to remain anonymous should have no bearing on the conversation. And it is true that not all anonymous handles are abusive or extremist. But it is equally true that most of the angry, abusive, abrasive and vague conversations/answers come from anonymous handles.
Read also | Imposition on anonymity is the challenge in cyberspace
And more importantly, even if someone finds out the identity of the person who is demeaning or abusing, they have no way of using that information in any meaningful way, just to that person. Apart from estimating. They can probably tag that person’s employer or family members (if available/traceable). Nevertheless, the tagged entities may decide not to do anything about it, and leave their opinion as it is, that person’s ‘freedom of expression’.
Promotion by Platforms
All of the above examples refer to anonymity by choice. But what happens when platforms actively encourage participants to remain anonymous? Platforms know who the real person is (as part of sign up), but they hide any identifiable information when allowing such people to participate in online conversations.
Consider a platform like Glassdoor where anonymous reviews are the norm. Glassdoor mentions in its Community Guidelines that “to protect privacy, we do not allow you to identify yourself or include any contact information (about yourself or others) in your posts”. Similarly, another online community, Fishbow, thrives on anonymity. “Your posts can be made private using only your company name or business title if you choose to, but your presence on Fishbow is public,” the platform says. Then there’s Reddit, a platform famous for its anonymity. “When people detach from their real-world identities, they can be more authentic, more true to themselves,” said Reddit co-founder Steve Huffman.
sharing fake news
The issue here is not only of abusive or extremist opinion but also of misinformation and propaganda. These are already big problems. And anonymity, either by choice or enforced by platforms, gives an individual the power to avoid judgment from public opinion. Only a legal mandate can hold them accountable for spreading lies, if need be.
In simple words, if someone who chooses to be anonymous on Twitter shares some fake information about you that affects your reputation in varying degrees, your only option is to go to the police and then take action. To get the platform. The platform itself will not be able to verify that you are correct or that the anonymous handle is correct, and will not take a stand unless compelled by law. Since the other person is anonymous, you can use a less tedious approach, such as appealing to their employer, family, or friends to hold them accountable for misinformation.
Given the tendency of people to behave in undesirable ways when their real-world reputation is not affected by what they say online, the proliferation of both pseudonymous social media handles and platforms that encourage pseudonymous profiles, Online misinformation and fake news can exacerbate already existing issues around it. ,
In an online confrontation, it is almost as if one side has their eyes covered with cloth and their hands tied behind them, while the other side has a bazooka in hand. You may not appeal rationally or emotionally to a pseudonymous online entity. You cannot shame them for backing down on their propaganda. You need to persuade someone else (either in a social media platform company or a law enforcement agency) to take action.
Karthik Srinivasan is a Communication Professional.
,