Chapter 2 – Literature Review
2.2 Hiding Behind the Veil: Online Anonymity as an Affordance for Trolls
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.2 Hiding Behind the Veil: Online Anonymity as an Affordance for Trolls
The internet is a haven for many users to openly share their beliefs and opinions without the fear of backlash, ridicule and judgment of others because ultimately, no one truly knows who you are. This anonymity is what many have come to both love and hate about the internet. It’s true that online anonymity has many positive aspects such as its importance for democratic processes, namely freedom of speech in sharing unfavorable ideas and opinions, and also for empowering those who might normally be discriminated against in real life (Christopherson, 2007; Kennedy, 2006).
However, anonymity can also bring out the worst in mankind; its freeing properties can catalyze hatred and spite. Even the ancient philosopher Plato once contemplated what effect anonymity could have on one’s morality; In his mythical tale “Ring of Gyges,” the main character, upon finding a golden ring that grants him invisibility, proceeds to use its powers to seduce the queen, slay the king and take up the throne for himself.
Anonymity, for many online users, is an affordance that allows them to freely spew hatred and bring down others without fear of punishment. Santana (2014) reviewed hundreds of comments on newspaper site articles about immigration and found that 53 percent of the anonymous comments were uncivil in contrast to 29 percent of the non-‐
anonymous comments which were uncivil. Also, non-‐anonymous commenters were three times more likely to leave civil comments than those who were anonymous.
To put the power of anonymity into perspective, consider the plight of women rights activist Anita Sarkeesian, who for the past few years, has been a victim of hordes of
nameless and faceless trolls (Kolhatkar, 2014). Trolls have attempted to ruin Sarkeesian’s life by sending her death threats, spreading false rumors and revealing her personal information online, with little chance of being held accountable for their actions. In the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
article, law professor at the University of Maryland and author of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, Danielle Citron, explained why this kind of outlandish abuse is possible in the 21st century,
The Internet brings out the best and the worst in us. Anonymity lets us be our true selves, so the domestic violence victim or the LGBT person can
communicate in a way they couldn’t before. But the trolls and the stalkers also act with impunity, because they can. Anonymity is the gasoline on the fire of hate that flares up on forums, chat rooms, and Xbox Live on a daily basis. (Kolhatkar, 2014)
Anonymity fuels many anti-‐social behaviors such as trolling and cyberbullying. The online world is different from real life because of many reasons, and thus many people exhibit behaviors differently online than they would in the real world. Hardaker (2010) offers an explanation as to why computer-‐mediated communication (CMC) and anonymity is often an ill-‐mixture:
CMC can offer a very high degree of anonymity, and a great deal more control over a self-‐representation than is available in FtF (Face to Face communication), but this anonymity can also foster a sense of impunity, loss self-‐awareness, and a likelihood of acting upon normally inhibited impulses.
(pp. 223-‐224)
There have been several theories about the effects of anonymity on online users.
Suler (2004) first noted that anonymity contributes to the online disinhibition effect. That is, individuals behave quite differently online than they would in normal everyday life. Suler
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
posited other factors which contribute to the disinhibiting effects of the internet such as invisibility and asynchronicity, but most studies credit the most prevalent affordance for trolling and other anti-‐social behaviors to the privilege of anonymity (Binns, 2012;
Christopherson, 2007; Lapidot-‐Lefler & Barak, 2012; Moore, Nakano, Enomoto, & Suda, 2012; Moor, Heuvelman, & Verleur, 2010; Turner, 2010). In contrast, the theory of
deindividuation, which offers different explanation for the effects of anonymity, describes a state in which individuals in a group will cause a decrease in self-‐observation, self-‐evaluation and concern for social comparison and concern. In other words, the loss of self-‐awareness when online might contribute to an individual’s likelihood to troll because they are not fully aware of their damage to others.
Another important aspect of anonymity is that it allows for people online to be unaccountable for their actions. Because online selves cannot be held accountable, this may lead to a decrease in public self-‐awareness so trolls may be aware of what they are doing but do so without fear of being punished. Christopherson (2007) called this feature autonomy which “involves the chance to experiment with new behaviors without fear of social consequences” (p. 3401). In turn, autonomy could lead to sense of extreme freedom for the individual who might do things normally disapproved of by others without the fear of consequences.
Internet anonymity also has an “equalizing effect,” as Santana (2014) noted.
Regardless of social status, sex, race, age, religion or status signifiers in the real world, everyone essentially remains at the same level online. “Because we cannot see each other, we cannot judge each other; consequently, virtual worlds are equalizing,” writes Kennedy (2006, p. 864).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Some have made a differentiation between different types or degrees of online anonymity. Hayne and Rice (1997) described two broad categories of anonymity – ‘technical anonymity’ and ‘social anonymity.’ ‘Technical anonymity’ is the removal of all meaningful identifying information about others, such as their name or picture, in the exchange of material. ‘Social anonymity’ refers to the perception of anonymity so while a user might not be truly anonymous, they still may perceive themselves to be so. Kennedy (2006) said,
“There is a distinction between feeling and being anonymous” (p. 866).
Admittedly, there are still others who say a lot of vicious and hateful things under their real names, as with the case of Twitter or Facebook users. Such individuals may be under the impression that they were anonymous as Joseph Reagle, Professor of
Communication Studies at Northeastern University suggests:
People say horrible things on Twitter all the time under their own names.
There was a case in which the feminist website Jezebel—after President Obama was elected—went and collected a series of Tweets from teenagers saying horrible, racist things under their own names. And there’s the Steubenville rape case—a lot of those guys were Tweeting horrible things under their real names. Even if they didn’t have anonymity, maybe they thought that they did (Lynch, 2014).
Therefore, even though some online trolls may not be truly anonymous, the mere belief that they are anonymous is sufficient to spur them to do and say things they
otherwise would not in Face-‐to-‐Face (FtF) communication. Many online trolls utilize various online tools to protect their anonymity online, such as virtual private networks (VPN) or masking IP addresses, while most trolls on social media sites simply do not register with
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
their real names or refrain from setting a profile pic. However, even the best measures may not completely ensure one’s anonymity online.
There are also different degrees of anonymity. Lapidot-‐Lefter and Barak (2012) made a distinction between ‘unidentifiability,’ the condition of being unknown to online others in terms of name, gender, age, weight, etc. and also ‘invisibility,’ which is not being able to see someone’s physical self online. Therefore, one can still video-‐chat with a stranger online who is “visible” while still unable to identify him/her.
Regarding invisibility, Moor et. al. (2010) found that the lack of eye contact in Computer-‐Mediated-‐Communication (CMC) was a significant factor in flaming behaviors, a.k.a. the use of hostile expression toward others in online communication. Moor also concluded that loss of self-‐awareness because of online anonymity was a plausible cause of flaming on YouTube. Finally, anonymity was a proven factor in aggressive online posts (Moore et al., 2012). Individuals who attacked other online users were more likely to be anonymous than those who defended other users from attacks.
It is undisputed that anonymity plays a fundamental role for those individuals who act as jerks online when they would be less inclined to do so in real life. In fact, many websites have resorted to removing aspects of anonymity, such as requiring users register with a real name, in order to combat trolling. More information about the methods in which to deter trolls or at least minimize their harmful effects are presented in later sections.
Anonymity itself can only be seen as an affordance to trolling, just as how owning a gun allows a person to murder. A gun owner has the free will to murder in the same way individuals concealed behind a wall of anonymity may choose to troll, but in the end, it still boils down to choice. Similarly, Lange (2007) has postulated that “it is not anonymity (or anonymity alone) but widespread forms of prejudice that lead to hateful messages” (p. 9).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Unanswered is the question “Why do some individuals troll and what are their motivations?” It is difficult to provide a conclusive answer to this question as the underlying motivations for trolling are still among dispute, and trolls on different platforms may be driven by different reasons. This question may be better answered by taking a closer look at troll culture, much of which is centered around the acquisition of “lulz” or entertainment obtained at the expense of online others.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學