Is it my imagination or do more Internet-based exchanges these days take place behind a smoke screen of anonymity? In contrast, with only a few exceptions, contributions to the print media in the form of letters to the editor, or other correspondence intended for public consumption, still require a bona fide identity declaration, as do town hall-style meetings and community stakeholder gatherings, where participants can't hide behind a pseudonym or catchy moniker.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against a good old in-your-face, feather-ruffling exchange of opinions. My concern is that anonymity gives people a licence to be more offensive, less civil and less accountable than they would normally be.
Recently an appropriately named group called Anonymous threatened to reveal personal information about Public Safety Minister Vic Toews after he introduced a sweeping Internet and cellphone monitoring bill intended to help eradicate the blight of child pornography.
Evidently, the proposed legislation could give the federal government carte blanche to scrutinize every Web-surfing expedition from sea to shining sea. As Rick Mercer, the king of the TV rant, put it, "the state has no business in the hard drives of the nation."
But there is more to this case than simply keeping a sharp and wary eye on government snooping. The ever-vigilant folks at Anonymous presented the following cryptic online message, delivered by a digitized robotic voice: "We warned you not to force your abhorrent spying legislation onto the Canadian people. You did not heed our warning. Now you will be exposed for the hypocrite that you are. Anonymous will not allow a politician who allows his citizens no secrets to have secrets of his own."
Yikes, I wonder what's worse, poor old Vic's ill-advised Internet fishing trip, or the righteous cyber rangers from Anonymous? Whether we agree with the bill in its present form or not, let's recall that it is not the prerogative of a nameless gang of hackers to use the Internet as a bully pulpit to threaten elected public officials who are in the process of carrying out their duties.
In general, one of the major problems plaguing the Internet these days is that under the protective umbrella of anonymity, public online forums and communities can quickly slip into a mosh pit of harassment and intimidation. Julie Zhuo, a product design manager at Facebook, puts it this way: "Psychological research has proven again and again that anonymity increases unethical behaviour ordinary, good people often change their behaviour in radical ways. There's even a term for it: the online disinhibition effect."
Defenders of anonymity in the blogosphere claim that opinions voiced during online discussions will be considered more objectively if participants post a pseudonym because factors like gender or ethnicity do not come into play when the message is evaluated.
And, of course, some of the over-the-top Web activity mentioned above is in a different league from the comparatively innocuous print-media-affiliated blogs that are vetted by editorial staff for unsavoury content.
Still, I figure that if you have something relevant to add to a discussion, whether it takes place online, in print, or in a public meeting, have the courtesy to take full ownership of your viewpoint by revealing your true identity.
