The discussion is both new and old: should comments be posted online only if the author with his true identity is behind them? Or is the anonymous network the better?
At the same time, anonymity means dishonesty. The network is once again being discussed in the name of the commitment.
After Arianna Huffington announced the introduction of common names in her online newspaper's commentforum, she returned: a dispute about anonymity online. At a meeting in Boston, Huffington argued that "freedom of expression is for people who stand up for what they say and don't hide behind anonymity." Therefore, in the future, commentary is allowed only with real names, to positively influence the level of debate and to prevent senseless violators, so-called trolls. Huffington is not alone in thinking that simple names lead to an honest and higher level of discussion. "Whoever can be identified behaves better," is the motto of the supporters. But is it? It's not just Facebook, whose policy clearly defines the name, that shows no.
For example, the 2007 precedent: The Communications Commission in South Korea has pretended that users of websites that regularly visit more than 100,000 users in the future using an ID card or credit card number clearly identify and write only with real names. 146 South Korean sites were affected. The number of abusive comments was expected to decrease as it was assumed that the real name would also create a higher sense of responsibility. However, the measure was suspended at the end of 2011 as research showed that the number of outrageous comments decreased slightly by 0.9 percent. The verification system has also proved to be a serious vulnerability. According to The New York Times, hackers stole about 35 million users' personal data, such as tax data, during that period.
The right to pseudonym
Almost at the same time, the strict introduction of clear names in Google in the U.S. has sparked debate about whether bloggers, users of news groups, social networks, and chat rooms have the right to anonymity on the Internet. On the page mynameisme.org numerous supporters of pseudonyms took a targeted position. The most common arguments in favor of a pseudonym are a constant fear of real consequences or a threat to the means of subsistence. Potential discrimination can be prevented by pseudonyms.
In Germany, numerous online activists, bloggers and federal politicians have issued an open letter. Signatures referred to Google under the German Telemedia Act, according to which the use of Internet services should not be associated with the use of real names, but should be a pseudonym. In a democracy, freedom of expression must be guaranteed without fear of infringement or ostracism. In addition to the function of providing people in totalitarian states with protection against repression by choosing a pseudonym, the rejection of this opportunity also limits the freedom of public figures to be part of the network.
In addition to the skepticism of many users on the disclosure of personal information on the Internet, many argue that the debates about the very common names are not honest. Companies such as Google and Facebook insist that they give up aliases because unlike other areas of the Internet they are understood primarily as a platform and service that expand real points of communication and social action . Anyone who understands social media as a distribution channel in this way can use this to simplify communication both privately and effectively in professional life. That growing engagement with a real person also means a very profitable business due to the individual distribution of advertising is no secret, but finds little information in this reasoning.
In anonymity, honesty
Arianna Huffington's reasoning reveals a mistake. Anyone who acts anonymously online is not honest. Honesty can also lie in anonymity, the user offers an image of himself. How realistic this is compared to a real person, even the general name cannot change. Aliases have a long tradition, especially in the news group and in the chat. Therefore, it is mainly necessary to distinguish between anonymity and a pseudonym.
The author of the commentary, who writes under a pseudonym, does not reveal his real identity, but is not necessarily anonymous. Rather, in a virtual round table, he creates an alternative identity through which he can protect himself as a real person, as well as clearly position himself and at the same time leave open the possibility to provide his actions creative possibilities that he doesn't have in reality. Digital partial identity emerges. A study conducted by the discussion platform Disqus concluded that users operating under a pseudonym are most actively promoting the debate because they offer the highest income in terms of quantity and quality.
Trolls on forums will still be a problem, even if they only occur from time to time. The motto "Troll, please don't feed!" by ignoring the intruder is not easy for everyone, even if it is the most productive way to finally slow it down. Forentroll is the biggest beneficiary of anonymity and owes its destructive actions to alleged impunity. However, the use of common names offers new targets for trolls that can achieve harassment.
The comments section is not a legal vacuum
What should be clear: The comments section is not a law-free zone. Meanwhile, many chat rooms and forums are moderated, editors suggest network etiquette, only subject to which participation is allowed. In addition, anonymity does not protect against criminal consequences.
So, is an anonymous network the best network? Optional. There is no panacea for destructive structures. The culture of commentary on the Internet is sometimes frustrating. However, the debate as a whole moves in group dynamic rituals, and biased trends will always increase with the increase in conversation time. All of this is part of a vibrant networking area, anonymous and personalized, showing that the virtual and real culture of communication is still a long way off.
Understanding the realization of common names as a panacea remains questionable in many ways. Ultimately, this will have serious implications for the nature and ability to interact with comments. At the same time, this will have little impact on the real problem. After all, derogatory comments remain a mirror of individual communication deficits. Anyone who in real life projectes his daily hatred on others and desecrates the best cash without justification, will not be held under the common name, even if it will sound loud, aggressive and brazen on the Internet.
What we need to convey more to users is that the digital world has a motto: behavior that is unacceptable in real life should not be online. As network columnist Sasha Lobo correctly observed, the culture of debate on the Internet still needs an act of "digital cardiac education" that adopts a civilized code of conduct and applies it in itself. For now, derogatory comments will be a price for a lively and diverse discussion.
Thank you for your attention!