Restricted or Banned Anonymity Online?
Cyber bullying and “trolling” is a big issue in the United States ever since the internet was created. Many adults and kids have suffered from depression, mental breakdowns and even suicide deaths or suicide attempts due to the fact that there are cyber bullies out there that want to hurt people emotionally and physically. Anonymity is what cyber bullies use to be able to hide who they truly are, and so they can keep hurting other people without any consequences. According to Jason Wilson, Julie Zhuo and Andrew Stafford there have been many doubts about anonymity and if it should be eliminated or restricted to certain people. In this essay I will compare and contrast all three of the authors opinions. I will also analyze carefully their point of views and at the end I will share which one was the most convincing or persuasive to me.
In the Article published online “Beware attempts to suppress conflict on the internet” by Jason Wilson, he argues how anonymity is being used in a negative perspective by “trollers” or cyber bullies that pollute the internet by manipulating the public platform within the internet. Wilson awakens his readers by making them realize that we should know that conflict is an elementary chapter in democracy and in freedom of speech. That we should know as long as there is communication within our people and our values or what we represent in our thinking and letting our voice be heard. Conflict will exist because it’s in our nature to communicate more and to express our feelings about something. In other words, Wilson is telling us that arguing and debating is a good thing for us and for democracy.
Jason Wilson in his article also expresses to us that the Internet platform is a big problem that allows anonymous people to express their ideas whether they are negative or positive.
Wilson supports that anonymity among people that share negative opinions are not even the factor of an online conversation. As an example, Wilson compares Australia by arguing that Australians have had long discussions and violent political problems long before the internet was around. “Democracy has survived until now without any big issues” (Wilson). While Wilson is arguing throughout his article and convincing us how there’s been many issues without the Internet platform, democracy has still been able to stand tall and keep moving forward.
Wilson states another example throughout his online article where there are increased uncivilized opinions and their credibility is supported by explaining to us that uncivilization allows us to think past the old lawful stories that are considered an uncivilized part in our democracy (Wilson). Because of this, it becomes harder to define the internet’s freedom and liberty to express your voice, and the reason why is because according to Wilson there isn’t one simple case where democracy has failed us by debating or arguing.
In the other hand, Stafford argues that democracy has been trolled and played with. All of this due to trolls and bully’s taking advantage of being anonymous to other people and how much freedom there is in an internet platform where you can really hurt someone’s feelings. In the article written by Andrew Stafford “Who are these haters that poison the well of our discourse?”, He argues that anonymity shouldn’t be eliminated but that we should restrict it to certain users. Stafford describes how a publication called the “The Tribune” disabled their comments to prevent people from commenting or posting any kind of negative connotations online. Stafford states that many people don’t seem to get bothered by the fact of the posting or the commenting in the columns on the bottom of the web page. He believes that nowadays a lot of people are more interested on their own space and time therefore they decide stay on an online platform for some time in order to get the info they so desperately need. Another topic that Stafford highlights is how one can perceive this large topic of interest. In support, Stafford leans towards the other position in his article. Stafford concurs that we must take action on the problem of offensive online comments. In Stafford’s article he states that anonymity has been a concern for us, mostly in online political debating and expressing their political ideals that’s the reason why it should be regulated and watched more carefully so that there can be proper guidance of who is expressing positively or in a rude manner which can hurt someone’s feelings.
Also, another point made by Stafford argues that eliminating anonymity is too much and he thinks it shouldn’t be eliminated but restricted to the harshest users who use it for hurting other people and to comment and post in a negative way and cause a negative impact on society. There are other ways that anonymity can be used in a negative or a positive way. The big issue is that researchers and scientists find that usually unanimity is used by people that only want to hurt other people and hide who they really are.Therefore Stafford has a point in restricting anonymity to certain people that only want to “troll” other people.
In Another article published by Julie Zhuo called “Where anonymity breeds contempt”, she convinces us that anonymity should be eliminated. In Zhuos’s New York Times article, she debates that once society has anonymity our actions can be negative because we can no longer distinguish them. She debates that to be able to eliminate anonymity, we must eliminate it completely. Zhuo explains to us one of Plato’s theories, where he tells society that “the power to be invisible or anonymous gives one the motive to be cruel and without the consequences for our actions, everyone would behave unlawful and unjustly” (Zhuo).
I think that Julie Zhuo’s argument was the most persuasive and convincing. In my research I became more convinced that anonymity should be banned, reason why is because “trollers” can really hurt someone’s feelings and they can just get away with anything. If you eliminate anonymity, then those “trollers” won’t have the courage to say any harm or negative comment.”
Also, anonymity should be banned because everyone who expresses something harmful, should be responsible and assume the consequences of their harmful opinions or ideals.
Eliminating anonymity is Julie Zhuo main point of view and I agree with her. She currently is a design director for Facebook which tells us that she has plenty of expertise in the social media area. She tells us that eliminating anonymity would hold everyone on the internet responsible of their actions and comments because we will know who commented or posted something. That will reduce the “trollers” harming people because they actually have to show who they are and face the consequences of their actions and guess what, cyber bullies never stand up for themselves because they don’t want face harsh consequences for a negative comment they posted.