“Online communication offers an alternative to traditional methods of political discourse and, in the process, raises new ethical concerns about anonymity and accountability” (Singer, B. 1996). With the rapidly growing popularity of the Internet, more and more people around the world are able to communicate with one anther through CMC. Typically, “When we first meet someone, we perceive only a few details about them: perhaps their appearance, a few words they utter, the context in which we meet them” (Donath, 2001 P.4). By taking away all these normal cues we are used to, it is hard for people to make a first impression of someone online. In some ways this is a good thing, because for the first time people are simply judging each other based on their minds. Being able to see what people have to say without paying attention to their appearance, their gender, their race, or even little things like an accent. Online communication makes it possible for people to talk honestly to one another without society influencing their thoughts of one another. On the other hand this idea of hiding all your personality traits and who you really are, makes it possible for you to create yourself into someone completely different. “ In the online world, much of our knowledge comes from other people’s testimony. Where we believe what we hear depends on whether we find the speaker credible, i.e. do we think the speaker is both honest and competent” (Donath, 2001 P. 8). This brings us to the scary topic of anonymity online. How do we know whom we are talking to or in some cases if we are even talking to another human at all? When becoming involved in online relationships, it is important to be careful whom you are getting involved with. Words appearing on your screen from a so-called friend, can easily manipulate you. Always remember that you really do not know who is at the other end of the keyboard. Sometimes we are not even talking to another person even though it may be an ongoing real time conversation that answers and asks questions, they are still not necessarily real people. “They are simple programs, essentially just linguistic parsers, with no underlying intelligence. Yet we easily attribute intelligence, humanity, and even personality to them” (Donath, 2001, P.2). It is easy to be tricked by these programs, even when you know you are talking to a machine, it is quite easy to get wrapped up in the conversation and to just let your self talk. ELIZA, “has almost no intelligence whatsoever, only tricks like string substitution and canned responses based on keywords,” try talking to her yourself and see if you are tricked (Eliza, computer therapist, 2006).
Other than simply being mislead and talking to a program or someone who is completely lying to you about their identity, just remember how easy it is to be tricked online. Most people are honest and good, and would never think to lie about who they are, so it is hard for them to assume people are misleading them. The Internet is a great thing and has advanced our world greatly, but just remember never to trust anyone online. Being anonymous online is simply too easy!
References
Donath, S, Judith. (2001). Being Real. Retrieved November 24, 2008 from
https://myasucourses.asu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fw ebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_238 99_1%26url%3d
Eliza, Computer Therapist. (2006). Retrieved November 28, 2008 from http://www.manifestation.com/neurotoys/eliza.php3
Singer, B. Jane. (1996). Virtual Anonymity: Online Accountability and the Virtuous Virtual Journalist. Jounral of Mass Media Ethics, Volume 11. Retrieved November 22, 2008 from http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~tbivins/jmme/php/view.php?a=30
5 comments:
After reading your article, I was interested in seeing if I could hold a conversation with ELIZA and tell if she was a human or not. My conversation with her mostly consisted of her repeatedly asking me questions about the questions I asked her. She couldn't seem to converse with me about anything and I could quickly tell that I wasn't interacting with a human. According to Donath (2001) ELIZA was created as a Rogerian psychotherapist and her method is to reflect patients' questions back to them to elicit further communication. Since ELIZA comes off cold towards humans who try to speak with her, it doesn't seem like many people can be fooled into thinking she's human.
The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover is a prime example of how anyone can be fooled into believing a so-called internet "friend" is showing their true identity. Alex was posing as Joan, a woman who was disfigured in a drunk driving accident (Van Gelder, 1991). Alex claims he wanted to know what it was like to be female and experience the intimacy of female friendship, but at what cost? He formed relationships with these females online and many of them felt that his experiment was a "mind rape" (Van Gelder, 1991). It is so easy to hide our flaws or even pose as someone completely different than our true selves, just to experience what it would be like to be in someone else's shoes.
Should we all be required to use web cams when forming relationships with others on the internet so that we can't hide our physical identities? Even if we did, how would we know that the person we see on the screen isn't lying about their personal identity?
References
Donath, J. S. (2001). Being real. In K. Goldberg (Ed.), The robot in the garden: Telerobotics and telepistemology in the age of the internet (pp. 297-311). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Van Gelder, L. (1991). The strange case of the electronic lover. In C. Dunlop & R. Kling (Eds.), Computerization and Controversy (pp. 533-546). San Diego: Academic Press.
This was very intriguing! But Rosen also comments that anonymity on the internet is a presumption (Rosen, 2007). What's your take on that with this section, if I can ask?
I think that you’re your blog was well written and gave some examples on how anonymity can be perceived as a positive aspect as well as a negative aspect of the Internet. I think that it is a very strong characteristic of the Internet that it provides a security of anonymity. This allows many people who would otherwise have a difficult time interacting with others a good medium to feel comfortable. I think that this is a strong tool for some people to be able to make genuine connections with others they may have not had the opportunity to have otherwise. Yet, my topic was cyberbullying and I was also able to research some of the negative aspects that go along with the anonymity of the Internet. The presence of anonymity in cyberbullying is made clear by Hinduja and Patchin (2008) when referencing “extreme viciousness and unconscionable textual violence expressed by cyberbullies who try to be anonymous.”(pp.135) These people who write these vicious words a look to anonymity to protect them. This is also seems to be a large concern for people looking to make a sincere connection with someone via the Internet. I was wondering where everyone stands on this topic. Do you think that the positive aspects of anonymity outweigh the negatives or vice versa? This question can also extend into Internet regulations. If you think the positives are dominant, how would Internet regulations inhibit these aspects of anonymity? Or if you think anonymity is mostly negative what kind of regulations do you think need to be in place to minimize anonymity?
Reference List
Hinduja, S. and Patchin, J. W. (2008) 'Cyberbullying: An Exploratory Analysis of Factors Related to Offending and Victimization', Deviant Behavior, 29:2, 129 — 156
Post a Comment