The allure of anonymity

Online anonymity is a bit of a catch-22. On the one hand, it is a major reason why certain news sites get hundreds of comments on articles. On the other, it's also a major reason why after the third comment, the thread turns into an embarrassingly racist argument between the likes of 'Boer52' and 'JujuFTW'.

Google+ recently joined Facebook in requiring users to use their real names, and the move has stirred up the controversial argument over real-name policies online.

I remember when Facebook first started clamping down on 'creative' usernames. One of my friends decided to change her middle name to "Creep" (which is an entirely different story in itself, but nevertheless). She thought it would be amusing.

Facebook was, however, not amused and her request for a middle name was rejected.

My friend just got more creative. The middle name she finally settled on was the more exotic "LaCreepe". She managed to sneak it past the Facebook moderators (or at least the algorithm that weeds out unlikely or uncouth names) and she kept it for about a month or two before growing out of it.

But of course, middle-names and harmless fun are not the major concern here (some of our middle-names may already verge on the ridiculous by no fault of our own). The real concern lies with the middle-aged paedophile who calls himself "HotBlonde13"; "Joe Soap" who sells nonexistent goods online; or "Anon" who posts death threats just because s/he can.

There is a fine line that social networks have to negotiate when it comes to online anonymity and 'pseudonymity'.

As Google started disabling user accounts, there was a major outcry from users who felt the search giant was being too strict in some cases and inconsistent in others.

Google+ stated it "requires users to use the name that you commonly go by in daily life".

There is also liberty in anonymity for those too afraid to speak out in person.

Kathryn McConnachie, journalist, ITWeb

Google's senior VP of social, Vic Gundotra, responded to a tongue-lashing from users by likening what Google was trying to do to a restaurant not allowing people who aren't wearing shirts to enter.

However, Bradley Horowitz, VP of Google+, has since stated on the new social network that the naming policy would be changed as soon as possible and that the changes should be implemented in a matter of weeks.

"We've noticed that many violations of the Google+ common name policy were in fact well-intentioned and inadvertent, and for these users our process can be frustrating and disappointing."

Google has been struggling with its stance on the subject for some time, however.

Last year, Google's then-CEO Eric Schmidt stated that anonymity on the Internet is dangerous, saying: "In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you."

Schmidt added: "We need a (verified) name service for people. Governments will demand it."

In that light, one can easily see the flipside of the argument - the perspective from which real-name policies can actually make users extremely vulnerable.

Part of the reason why the subject raises so many hackles, is because of the cases in which anonymity is constructive for users.

For many activists in oppressive states, the ability to communicate online without having to reveal one's personal identity can prove vital; while the real-name policy of some social networks used to organise rallies and protests can in extreme cases, prove fatal.

There is also liberty in anonymity for those too afraid to speak out in person - such as victims of abuse, prejudice and even those who are just too shy to express themselves in person but who find a voice online.

A home-grown example of this is the acclaimed online project, "My First Time" which allows women to have their personal stories published anonymously in an effort to help others through the value of shared experience.

While real-name policies may be seen as the answer to reducing trolling and abusive or overly aggressive comments and posts online by increasing accountability, it also has the downside of detracting from freedom of speech and discouraging dialogue on difficult topics.

Granted, it may be a push at times to see racist slurs and personal attacks as constructive, but the fact remains that such views still exist so we unfortunately can't brush them under the carpet and pretend they aren't there.

As an online journalist, I have seen first hand how the darker side of people seems to be coaxed out by the allure of leaving an anonymous comment. One does, however, learn to take it with a pinch of salt and move on.

Of course, I would not object to a mechanism that made it necessary for a person to have to engage their faculties of reason and logic before posting statements in certain contexts.

But alas, thoughtfulness cannot be made mandatory, and those who need anonymity cannot and should not be denied it because of those who abuse it.