Almost Anonymous
Over the past few days anonymity and its role in our daily lives has been brought to my attention on many fronts. Interestingly enough, each of these recent run-ins has revealed a little bit of insight into our need and perception of the thing itself.
A few days ago, it was reported that Amazon Canada had inadvertently released the identities of the persons that had previously made anonymous book reviews. Here's a little from that article:
"That anybody is allowed to come in and anonymously trash a book to me is absurd," said Rechy, who, having been caught, freely admitted to praising his new book, "The Life and Adventures of Lyle Clemens," on Amazon under the signature "a reader from Chicago." "How to strike back? Just go in and rebut every single one of them."
Rechy is in good company. Walt Whitman and Anthony Burgess both famously reviewed their own books under assumed names. But several modern-day writers said the Internet, where anyone from your mother to your ex-agent can anonymously broadcast an opinion of your work, has created a more urgent need for self-defense.
As best I can see, the practice is rationalized by three different camps:
- Self-Promoters - persons that wrote favorable, rave reviews for their own works
- Defamers - persons that wrote intentionally poor, negative reviews for the sake of lowering consumers' expectations for one work in favor of another (usually for their own personal or social gain)
- Balancers - persons that suspected some form of abuse was underway in the review system, either positive or negative, that needed adjustment
Anonymity as control.
Earlier yesterday, I was reading through some follow-up comments on actionScriptHero's recent Central post and one commentator chose to launch a quick, anonymous, missive at the author. Oddly enough, the same user came back later to add in a half-positive comment and was inadvertently caught - by IP address no less - in the act. asH called him out on the matter and the commentator provided a rather interesting response:
There are several reasons why I responded like I have done
1. I did not respond to your first 'Central for Golddiggers' post, but when I read your second, almost identical post I just wanted to leave my first impression without spending any time on further argumentation.
2. In such a situation it is better to respond anonymously. I am not interested in receiving mails from other readers initiated from the emailaddress I left at the blog. In case the owner of the blog wants to know more he can trace me an contact me. I always reply those requests.
3. You asked twice for an argumented response on your blog. So I thought it would be fair to give you the argument behind my ironic initial response as a new comment instead of an email.
4. I knew, that in case you were interested, you could easily trace that this message and the first message are sent by the same person.
5. I did not want to spend my time on explaining the reasons behind my initial ironic response. They have no added value. So i just gave you the answer you asked for.
It would be nice if you and all your fellow bloggers make it easier to provide an anonymous comment, so people don't have to go to a process of inventing fantasy names and email-adresses just to pass validation. Usability, you know. If I have the time for an argumented response I always provide my real firstname and lastname (no acronym or nickname!) even if the message has a critical tone. You know this. If I don't have time for an argumented response, but feel the need for a quick respons, I prefer an anonymous reponse. Most of the time this is respected.
Anonymity as convenience.
Last night, we attended a Leashes & Lovers event to both provide support to our new friends as well as to promote the SparkCard System. We met a great bunch of people and had a lot of interesting conversations about anything and everything. Naturally, one of our main topics was the SparkCard itself and the anonymity it enabled one to have. Not surprisingly, some were less enthusiastic than others about our promised benefit. In this context, I should make it clear that when we say "anonymous" this can be taken to also mean "personal or private".
It was interesting to learn that a few people were quite willing to laud their cell phone or e-mail address onto a casually encountered stranger. What's interesting is the driving force behind this. A little further discussion seemed to reveal that despite the very public, non-private nature of that information, many people felt secured by it -- it offered a level of anonymity to them. It seems that the absence of face-to-face interaction can, in many ways, be seen as a safety net on its own and hence, creating that pseudo-anonymous space.
I see this as a matter of focus for the most part. As a technical-type, living a highly-connected life, my e-mail address, phone number, etc. are held far more sacred to me than someone that is a casual user. I understand the ways that information can be leveraged today to reveal a great deal more about me than I necessarily care for anyone to know. Many people can treat their online identities as disposable because, for now, they are. However, as the online world blurs more and more into the offline one, at what point do the costs of abandoning my identity outweigh the costs of protecting it?
Anonymity as security.
Control, Convenience, Security. Quite a wide array of roles when you think about it. Of course, they're all perversions of themselves.