Anonymous post
 | This article possibly contains original research. (May 2012) |
An anonymous post is an entry on a bulletin board system, Internet forum or message board, blog, or other discussion forum without a screen name or more commonly by using a non-identifiable pseudonym. Some online forums do not allow such posts, requiring users to be registered. Some may allow anonymous posts, but discourage those known as "anonymous cowards" (a term coined by Slashdot). Others like JuicyCampus, AutoAdmit, 2channel and other Futaba-based image boards (such as 4chan) thrive on the anonymity. Users of 4chan, in particular, interact in an anonymous and ephemeral environment that facilitates rapid generation of new memes.[1]
IP addresses
Anonymity on the Internet is limited by IP addresses. For example, WikiScanner associates anonymous Wikipedia edits with the IP address that made the change and tries to identify the entity that owns the IP address. On other websites, IP address may not be publicly available, but they can be obtained from the website controllers.
Identifying the author of an anonymous post may require a Doe subpoena. First, the IP address of the poster will be obtained from the hosting website. Through a second request, courts then order an ISP to identify the subscriber to whom it had assigned said IP address. Requests for such data are almost always fruitful, though providers often will effect a finite term of data retention (in accordance with the privacy policy of each—local law may specify a minimum and/or maximum term).
Yet there are also services that aim at making it impossible to trace back a user activity to a specific ip number - such a service is called an Anonymizer. Examples of anonymizers include I2P and Tor.
Legal protections
The right to speak anonymously online is protected, in the United States, by the First Amendment, and various other laws. These laws restrict the ability of the government and civil litigants to obtain the identity of anonymous speakers. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."[2] This protection has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect the right to speak anonymously offline. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,[3] the Supreme Court overturned an Ohio law banning the distribution of anonymous election pamphlets. The Court said, "[a]n author’s decision to remain anonymous . . . is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."[3] The Court found that "anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."[3] Various courts have interpreted these offline protections to extend to the online world.[4]
Acceptability of anonymous posting within communities
Online communities vary with their stances on anonymous postings. Wikipedia allows anonymous editing in most cases, but does not label users, instead identifying them by their IP addresses, with other editors commonly referring to them with neutral terms such as "anons" or "IPs". Slashdot permits the practice and employs the label.[5]
Many online bulletin boards require users to be signed in to write (and in some cases, even to read) posts. 2channel and other Futaba-based image boards take an opposite stance, encouraging the anonymity, and in the case of English Futaba-based websites, calling those who use usernames and tripcodes "namefags" and "tripfags," respectively.[6]
Slashdot discourages anonymous posting by referring to anonymous posters as "anonymous coward". The mildly derogatory term is meant to chide anonymous contributors into logging in.[7][8]
Effect of anonymous posting on user behavior
Anonymity is well-known to cause users to misbehave. Users lose their inhibition when they and others are anonymous. There are several factors contributing to this disinhibition effect, including[9]:
- Dissociative anonymity: Since what a user does online won't be directly linked to the rest of their lives, the user's online self becomes compartmentalized, and the user may feel free to act differently.
- Invisibility: The users may find it easier to act out when he cannot physically see or hear the people he is interacting with.
- Asynchronicity: Users may find it easier to post something personal or difficult to say when they don't have to face the consequences of their posting immediately - they can leave it there, and do not have to return to it.
- Solipsistic introjection: When interacting with others online, a user might experience the other people "as a voice within [the user's] head" [9]. The others seem to become a part of the user's internal world. The user feels as though he is talking to himself, which makes him feel safe to unleash thoughts and feelings that he normally considers private.
- Dissociative imagination: The online world in which the user interacts seems compartmentalized, like a "make-believe dimension, separate and apart from the demands and responsibilities of the real world" [9]. As a result, she does not follow the rules of behavior she normally does.
- Minimization of authority: Online, the trappings of authority are invisible, and the limitations of appearances do not affect a user's interactions with others. It is easier for users to act as equals when, as in an online setting, they seem to be equals.
Disinhibition can result in misbehavior, but can also improve user relationships. Just as it is a venue for political dissent (see above), anonymity may also result in greater disclosure among Internet users, allowing more emotional closeness and openness in a safe social context [10].
See also
Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada
References
- ^ http://projects.csail.mit.edu/chanthropology/4chan.pdf
- ^ First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
- ^ a b c McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
- ^ See, e.g., Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005); Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1154 (2008).
- ^ "What's Online" by Dwight Silverman, Houston Chronicle, July 7, 2000, Technology, page 2.
- ^ Page, Lewis. "Anonymous hackers' Wikileaks 'infowar' LATEST ROUNDUP". The Register. The Register. Retrieved 20 July 2011.
- ^ "Andover.Net scoops up seminal Slashdot site", C|Net News.com article by Stephen Shankland, dated June 29, 1999. (Stating that the term "Anonymous Coward" was popularized by Slashdot.)
- ^ "Looking through a Window on Open Source Culture," by Sanjay Gosain. Systèmes d'Information et Management 2003, volume 8, issue 1 at page 22. (Stating that "Anonymous Coward" was popularized by Slashdot.)
- ^ a b c Suler, John (2004). "The online disinhibition effect". CyberPsychology & Behavior. 7 (3).
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help) - ^ Ben-Ze'e v, Aaron (2003). "Privacy, emotional closeness, and openness in cyberspace". Computers in Human Behavior. 19 (4): 451–467.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)