Anonymity vs. Accountability
There are many who believe that the solution to incivil speech in online fora is to have people identify themselves with their “real” names - the names which may appear on various forms of government-issued ID.
Although there is certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that link, there is also evidence enough to suggest that real names don’t always cause civil speech, and evidence also that suggests anonymity does not always cause incivil speech.
I would like to suggest that the reason for the unclear link between anonymity and rudeness is down to another (hidden?) factor - the perceived likelihood of social consequences based on behaviour within a social context (such as a social network site).
Surely, accountability is behind the “real names” policies of Google and Facebook? People feel more accountable if their “real” name and photograph are seen within the social context that they are operating in. When I post on Facebook or Google+, people see my picture, and my name. They can associate my online behaviour with an offline facsimile of me.
But trust is inspired by consistent behaviour within a social context; that is, people trust me on Facebook to post accurate information about my family, my work and my hobbies. In the case where a Facebook friend is also someone I know IRL, then their sense of trust that the Facebook me is the real-life me is enhanced. If someone else used the name ‘John Kemp’ but exhibited different behaviour than that typical of me, then I expect that some would suspect that the poster was not me. If I used an alias, and posted about my family, work and hobbies, I would expect that people who knew me in other situations would associate the alias with me too.
Facebook has certainly created an environment where I am encouraged to be civil. However, personally, I feel that it is because of the overall social context of Facebook that I would not risk being rude, violent or otherwise incivil in that arena. The same is true of Google+. I am civil because I expect that people who know me in other contexts would not approve of me being incivil in that arena any more than they would in a face-to-face situation.
If the social context itself is not enough, then perhaps the ability for the host of a social network to make personal contact with an offender, and to sanction or remove him is the next step? And many social sites have moderators who often have this task. They are the online equivalent of the police. Linking a username to a method of contact is important to allow such policing.
Before we rush to disallow pen-names and other pseudonyms, or to abolish anonymous speech, we should consider the need for accountability in online social situations. Accountability is not guaranteed by a real name policy, and is context-dependent. Accountability in one context can influence accountability in another. Social sites can create social accountability without requiring real names, and should do so.
