The Internet and Anonymity

Applying war paint, or wearing burglar masks or Ku Klux Klan robes are all examples of protecting one's identity prior to engagement in antisocial behavior. In social psychology, this effect introduced by Leon Festinger in 1952 is called deindividuation, a process wherein normative behavior may cease when people are seen as a group rather than identified individually. Social scientists have identified numerous examples of this phenomenon, demonstrating in a variety of studies that our inhibitions tend to be lowered when we are not held accountable. For example, imagine you are in a classroom with five other students and your professor wants to discuss the topic. You don't feel as inclined to talk in a large classroom of thirty. We sometimes, therefore, do together what we wouldn't do alone. The anonymous environment of the Internet is no exception.

The perceived anonymity of the Internet may prompt individuals to lower their inhibitions because, hey, they don't know me. And they probably never will. This collective mindset has come to loosely be called the Internet Disinhibition Effect.

Examples of this effect at work online are in online "flame wars," which happen between users in a disagreement. An increasingly prominent population of Internet "trolls," or individuals who deliberately get users angry, are another example. Still more tragic examples of this behavior exist like cyberbullying amongst teens. In a few cases, this behavior leads to depression and suicide.

A couple of links concerning these particular cases (but this really skims the surface):
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/TheLaw/teens-charged-bullying-mass-girl-kill/story?id=10231357
http://web.archive.org/web/20071118052137/http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/17/internet.suicide.ap/index.html

Who would engage in this sort of activity if others knew who they were?

Cases like this did not have a clear precedent until only a few years ago, prompting "cyber harassment" laws to crop up all over the country. Unfortunately, checks, balances, and our current political system at large do not adequately address a sudden permutations prompted by the Internet, among other social media.
 
We must therefore break deindividuation online to combat its harmful effects.

The Internet in its current form is not as anonymous as we like to believe, however. Most users probably don't know that their computers and their location are easily identifiable online. Your IP address can be used to geographically locate your computer. In criminal cases, IP addresses are sometimes used as evidence of culpable parties. If individuals knew that their IP broadcasts to most websites, which typically lack secure connections (the exception being some email services, banking websites), they might cease antisocial behaviors. For most users, therefore, it is to their advantage to keep restrain from antisocial behavior.
 Unfortunately savvy hackers can spoof IP information or put it to even more disturbing uses, again perpetuating negative effects of deindividuation.

We can see deindividuation reflected in the organization of limited-liability corporations as well. When individual shareholders are not accountable for the activities of a firm, even if they work for it, the bottom line, profit, sometimes undercuts human capital.

That said, there are positive effects of deindividuation online, such as a tendency toward openness in conversation with strangers. This disinhibiting effect isn't inherently antisocial. It should be noted that deindividuation does not always lead to antisocial behavior, and may in fact lead to prosocial behavior. For example, Johnson and Downing conducted a study in 1979 that found localized norms mediated the deindividuation effect. Their participants were dressed either in outfits reminiscent of KKK outfits, or in nurses' uniforms, and given a task wherein they believed they were administering shocks to another participant. Participants were significantly less likely to shock individuals when they were in a nurse's uniform than in a KKK uniform. At present, it's not clear what "uniform" the Internet gives users. We should strive to make it a positive garb, promoting prosocial behavior.

Media Diet

1. Your Media Diet

Your task for this assignment is to record your media consumption for 5-7 days straight. Take note of how many hours you spend reading, watching television, using the Internet, or engaging with any other forms of media. While you do not have to give an exhaustive account of every TV show you watch or website you visit, do note what types of books, TV, websites, etc. that you consume. You can also describe which particular shows you watch or sites you visit daily/on a regular basis. After listing your media diet for each day of the week (length of time, types of media), you should provide a brief analysis. Questions you might address in your analysis include: What does your media diet say about you? How do you think it might compare to the media diets of other people your age? What might your media diet suggest about American society more broadly? Are there changes you'd like to make regarding your media consumption? How might your social location influence your media intake?

 I recorded my media consumption for 6 days over the last week. I had a good idea of how much time I devoted to various activities, but the numbers I laid out still surprised me.

Please keep in mind that some of these activities intersect. I may be reading while online, or reading online, for example.

 Monday, January 10 -12 hours online, 2 hours reading social psychology journal articles. In general, I worked on homework using facilities like Angel, caught up on current events in the news, and looked into technology websites like Gizmodo and Kotaku. I chatted with friends on AIM and Facebook, and then played Starcraft 2 intermittently throughout the day. I checked email several times on Groupwise and Gmail.
Tuesday, January 11 - 13 hours online, 3 hours reading social psychology journal articles. Again, I used Angel, looked at news websites (BBC, CNN), technology websites, checked email, and played video games while chatting on Facebook and AIM.
Wednesday, January 12 - 11 hours online, 1 hour reading social psychology journal articles. All of the aforementioned activities online.
Thursday, January 13 - 10 hours online. All of the aforementioned activities online. I played Xbox for 2 hours as well.
Friday, January 14 - 8 hours online. All of the aforementioned activities online.
Saturday, January 15 - 9 hours online. All of the aforementioned activities online

Almost all hours of the day not spent out with friends or in class are in front of a computer screen in some capacity, where I continue talking to friends while completing school-related work. My roommates have a similar pattern of use, with most hours of the day either in class or online. I expect that is rather common among individuals my age -- or at the very least, a substantive number of hours.

In one way, I regard my pattern of Internet use as above average. That said, I don't think it's uncommon for Americans between the ages of 15-25 to spend almost half of the day online in some capacity. It's exceedingly difficult to not be connected, whether on your computer, phone, iPod, or a tablet, because the operation of most  communication mediums are increasingly contingent on connection. For example, most classes use Angel or ERes to facilitate class assignments or discussions. Even if someone had no interest in the Internet, they would probably be channeled in. That said, all of the previous media outlets are now online as well. For some, individual interests have not shifted, but the medium has. For example, my roommate watches hundreds of television shows and movies, but seldom on television-- almost always on his computer. While lying in bed with snacks.

With the current trajectory of Internet use, in particular, I see other mediums being downplayed in the future, or integrating the Internet. For example, Internet will be fully integrated into television in many capacities. The question I'd pose is whether this much connection is a good thing. I see this as a problem of evolution. That is, while our technology evolves every minute, we biologically evolve at a much slower pace. As such, people aren't built to sit around playing video games, watching television, reading, or surfing the web for an excess of hours per day.

The technology we use isn't inherently geared to force people to sit for hours. We can certainly make use of the Internet wherever we like. It's an issue of distributing that knowledge to individuals so that they will take care of themselves while consuming.

That said, I should probably take my own advice and get up from this chair for the first time in a while. I could use a bit of exercise myself.

Martin blogs about the Internet: Antisocial Subcultures

The Internet is a profoundly useful technology, allowing for instantaneous sharing of knowledge among individuals next door or on the other side of the globe. The Internet, in its current form, is certainly not anonymous, but many users engage in antisocial behavior in part due to perceived anonymity. This blog is devoted to examination of this activity on the Internet.