Stafford's Argumentative Essay: What Is Anonymity?

In the essay Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt, by Julie Zhou, her thesis is “But the law by itself cannot do enough to disarm the internet’s trolls. Content providers, social network platforms and community sites must also do their part by rethinking the systems they have in place, for user commentary so as to discourage- or disallow- anonymity.” Zhou’s thesis is located in the first two sentences of paragraph nine, on page 89. 2. The issue Zhou addresses in this essay is trolling on the internet.

The internet has put the world literally at anyone’s fingertips with a vast quantity of information is a mouse-click away. Information that was once only available in obscure reference libraries or card catalogs can be accessed by everyone. Unfortunately the internet is an equal opportunity tool, and those with virtuous as well as nefarious intentions can use this open resource to further their efforts to levels heretofore unheard of. The internet is also soapbox for free speech that epitomizes the intentions of the founding fathers to allow everyone the same opportunity to have their opinions aired. There is a line that often blurs between legitimate and illegal behavior, when does harsh criticism become bullying, when does an expression

To conclude, my perspectives on anonymous is to attract attention to injustices/shameful acts so that the masses can see them for what they genuinely are. The point is to get information out to the masses. With respect to US, we all see in different articles that information is the primary reason for the last 40 years of US involvement in wars and the motivation behind why more americans aren't as livid as they ought to be is on account of they are simply unaware.

I like the article and agree with several points that were made in the article. One thing that I like about the article is that the author present an argument for the usefulness of anonymous sources even though the article is about the opposite. Anonymous sources can sometimes be good. For example, whistleblower who risk losing their job when they come to present negative stories about their workplace. I am in the middle when it comes to whether anonymous sources are to be use or not when presenting a news

People’s online presence differs from their personality in real life, they feel almost invincible thanks to anonymity, like they can say anything without repercussions and consequences. In Jon Ronson’s book, “So You’ve Been Publically Shamed”, he examines 4 people who have had their lives ruined by online harassment via social media platforms, with virtually no repercussions for the online shamers. The problem with internet is the mass amounts of threats sent and received everyday, which proves that our online citizenship should

An article written by Richard Bird states, “The anonymity of the internet has created an environment where the absolute worst aspects of our human nature manifest themselves; stalking pedophilia, bullying to the point of driving someone to suicide, revenge postings of nude photographs of former girlfriends, boyfriends, and spouses.” This is a very small list of how many bad things that have happened or occurred more often because of the internet and how we abuse the privileges of the internet. These things need to stop, and it can all start with one person. Every single one of these things was started by one person, so why can’t it be stopped by one person? It can be, it just takes one brave person, and courage within them to speak up about the

In the article “Online Anonymity Protects Marginalized Groups,” the author argues that online anonymity is used by marginalized groups to preserve their privacy. The venues the author refers to are the social networks Facebook and Google Plus, which have “real name” policies that forbid the use of pseudonyms (Boyd, par. 7). The author attempts to answer if said policies protect users or if they increase user vulnerability. She states that the stakeholders in this issue are those most affected by prohibiting pseudonyms and nicknames, the vulnerable and marginalized members of society such as “abuse survivors, activists, LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people, women, and young people” (Boyd, par. 3). The values attached to the issue are those of safety, as people often utilize pseudonyms to preserve their physical and mental health, as well as that of their families (Boyd, par. 2). Boyd is against the enforcement of “real name” policies because it exposes those who need protection, arguing that “you don't guarantee safety by stopping people from using pseudonyms, but you do undermine people's safety by doing so” (Boyd, par. 11). The author concludes that “enforcing ‘real names’ policies in online spaces is an abuse of power” (Boyd, par. 12). The solution she presents is simply not enforcing real name

“The Loud, Ugly World of Online Commenting” by Benjamin West talks about the newest form of exploiting freedom of speech – online commenting. This mode of expression of speech was meant to voice opinions and critic pieces but, users have been using this mode to make nasty and rude comments. And what encourages this behavior is the anonymity, like Mike Krahulik suggests that “Normal person plus anonymity plus audience equals total dickward” when people are aware that their identities are hidden, they feel they are not responsible for the consequences of their words and feel free to be hateful. These hateful comments that individuals post in fact can have very serious consequences to the person it is addressed to and is a form of cyber bullying.

Relying on the anonymous sources for giving the information is not something new; thirty one years ago, the Washington Post did not seem to hesitate to use information from the anonymous source nicknamed Deep Throat when covering the Watergate Break in. (Deep Throat was later revealed to be Deputy Director of the FBI William Mark Felt), at that time and according to Greg Laden “perhaps consumers of news assume that traditional news outlets have sufficient internal quality control that anonymously supplied information is trusted “

The rapid growth in technological innovation has brought about an increase in information via digital platforms, bridging communications all over the world from different geographical locations. This progression of virtual interactivity has enabled the possibility of anonymity, and it has deliberated continuously whether it aids or hinders society, and questions the efficacy of anonymity. One aspect of anonymity is that it is implemented in the identity of online self-representation through the discourses of general communication, cyberbullying and hacker criminality. Therefore, the character of obscurity is crucial in specific online actions and this will be analysed throughout. Anonymity acts as a different tool for every purpose, and how it impacts individuals and society in varied measures. There are consequences of invisibility, in both positive and negative aspects which tailor an individual’s online portrayal. Focusing on how invisibility can be democratic and influence community building, but at the same time encourage immoral behaviour, reflects the prominence of cyberbullying and corrupt activity.

Now that the background of anonymity and pseudonymity has been discussed, the positive aspects of both can be evaluated. “Nearly 83 percent strongly or somewhat strongly agreed with the statement that anonymity ‘promotes a livelier, more passionate discussion’ and slightly more than 94 percent said anonymity allowed participants ‘to express ideas they might be afraid to express otherwise’” (Rosenberry 13). These statistics are enforced by the observation that, “…anonymous communication also creates positive dynamics on the Internet. Feeling protected and secure, some people are more likely to share important but sensitive information online” (Johnson 12). The everyday users admire anonymity on the internet because they feel it can be used to protect their own professional identities and others around them. “Communicative anonymity encourages people to post requests for information to public bulletin boards about matters they might find too personal to discuss is there were any chance that the message might be traced back to its origin” (Froomkin 115). In this case the individual may not realize that the message could be traced back to them if a criminal issue were to arise. However, it is not a criminal act to request for information online. There are users of the internet who would like to voice their opinion of the government or their workplaces, but they are too afraid to say in person or with their own name because they fear the repercussions. There are also individuals

The issue of online anonymity is becoming increasingly important and ubiquitous in the virtual world as the internet has become a fast-rising necessity in our everyday lives. Recently, online forums and domains that allow users to attain anonymity easily have become increasingly popular. In this paper, we will be exploring why people choose to be anonymous on the internet, the positive and negative consequences of online anonymity and the demographic differences of people who choose to stay anonymous online.

“Journalism scholars, critics, and the public continue to debate the wisdom of using unnamed sourcing in news reports. Proponents argue that granting sources anonymity is necessary to ensure the free flow of information that otherwise would go unreported. Critics of the practice charge that journalists too readily grant anonymity and thus risk undermining media credibility.” (Duffy).

Anonymity and pseudonymity can be beneficial to certain parts of the internet community. One example can be seen in a web-based public forum, where anyone can freely join and take on either side of the argument and express his or ideas without having to worry about receiving physical accusations, reprimands, or revenge from the opposing side: "Free

Are there laws in engraved stone that help tackle online abuse in this era of information? Are governing bodies doing enough to highlight and make aware infrastructures that are widely available for victims of abuse? This paper echo 's the voices for and against. This research found naïve consumers of mass media consumption being targeted for sensitive information that in-turn was used to abuse, cyber bully complaints of a sensitive age. Teenagers ignoring privacy policies were to blame for side stepping their own well being, sharing personal information that could map them to precise locations and endanger their wellbeing. On the contrary legislations have been in print for decades that help filter out any abusive manner offline and online. This research paper concludes that users are to blame for their laziness of sharing/leaking their live database of primary information that may be used to cyber bully/target individuals. Consumers should not be blamed entirely for their lack of knowledge as laws implemented in each country vary and entail some form of study that may not be easily interpreted. Governing bodies should invest in more ways in which user-friendly/simplified versions of legislations that may be easy to read and advertised on all new forms of mediums online. That can increasingly help warn new consumer of the World Wide Web.