Following their recent informal survey, Lucas Cioffi just shared a comprehensive list of arguments why requiring citizens to register on government websites with their real names may not always be such a good idea: Protect Anonymous Comments Online
Here’s the comment I just left:
Nice list of arguments.
I wonder what opportunities there are to design systems that offer more flexible ways of dealing with identity. For many of the participation scenarios I’m aware of, neither a strict real name requirement nor a complete laissez-faire approach seem to provide the right structure.
As an alternative, an online participation system might well require participants to sign up with their real name or even verify their identity (as part of their account information). Yet participants could choose if and to what extent they want to share their real identity with the other participants or the general public (via their profile and privacy settings). In case the system was hosted by a neutral third party provider, participants might even be able to shield their private information from the convener organization.
This approach would also allow us to differentiate between various activities participants are asked to engage in. Some processes would require real names, other might work better if participants stayed anonymous.
Finally, participants could be empowered to choose as a group which level of anonymity (or revealed identity) they prefer. For example, a group of participants engaging in small-group dialogue could choose to reveal their real names only if and when all of them have expressed that they are comfortable with it.
I think it’s worth exploring these dynamics.
Please leave a comment if you’ve come across any online tools that deal creatively with this tension between anonymous and identified participation.
Related posts:
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Tim, your suggestions above are excellent. The most progress I’ve seen along those lines is with the Information Card Foundation’s pilot projects with the Federal Government: http://informationcard.net/blog/open-identity-initiative-2009-09-09
Requiring real names simply seems like a lazy (and ineffective) solution, while innovating our way toward better online dialogue has so much potential. I look forward to hearing the results of the Information Card Foundation’s pilots.
Another use case I’d like to add is the ability to post anonymously but commit to being identifiable (to some degree) if one’s behavior is deemed objectionable by others or the group.
There are most certainly instances where anonymity is required to protect people. That said, I am quite disturbed by the way in which people hide behind an anonymous email address/identity and spew hate speech on news sites and youtube.
I am not in favor of curbing free speech, I am in favor of cultivating responsible speech.
My personal opinion is that if you are going to leave a derogatory remark that contributes nothing to the conversation other than inflaming and inciting hatred, then your name and face should be displayed so others will know who you are. My suspicion is that a lot of the hate speech that is out there now will be diminished by such a practice.
I know this is a difficult and complex issue and I am not seeking easy answers, but a dialogue to improve the current state of collective internet practices.
Ken Homer
Great list of arguments supporting anonymous participation in online engagement by Matt Crozier of Bang the Table (from September 2009): The case for anonymity in online forums
[Global] Intellitics » Anonymity in Public Participation: Following their recent informal survey, Lucas Cioffi ju… http://bit.ly/6nW0os
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
{ 2 trackbacks }