On anonymity and accountability

Providing yet another piece of evidence for the thesis that there is a relevant XKCD strip for everything, an entry in the long-running webcomic depicts in its first couple panels two people engaged in an Internet comment war. In an unrealistic turn of events, a third person — an arbiter of sorts — flies to one of them and carries him all the way to the other. Finding themselves face to face, the two people have nothing to say to each other. The arbiter then flies the first person back to his chair, where he sits stunned, contemplating what just happened.

This issue of the comic makes a valuable point: The computer can be a seemingly impenetrable barrier, a near-fully-protective line of defense against any affront or attack found online thanks to its culture of anonymity. Comments sections on blogs and news sites are typically full of people from all over the world commenting under a name which fully protects their identity. This can be a very good thing (namely, people who would feel uncomfortable expressing something under their real identity are given a chance to post from an anonymous perspective), but, by and large, this turns out to be a very bad thing. Freedom from repercussions can allow for wonderfully frank and personal comments from some, but it also allows for hateful, slanderous and venomous comments from others.

I’m not going to argue for the destruction of anonymity in Internet commenting, because, firstly, that would be impossible to implement and, secondly, sometimes it’s a very good thing to say something potentially controversial without fear of attack. However, especially in light of recent tragedies inextricably intertwined with very touchy subjects like race and gender, the vitriol found in these Internet flame wars has seemed to increase drastically over the past few months. The comments become an endless circlejerk of both sides reaffirming their own opinion over and over again through the medium of, as XKCD so eloquently puts it, saying something over text that no one would ever say to their counterpart’s face. Furthermore, thanks to the near-total impunity associated with writing these comments, it’s almost impossible to actually confront an online opponent in a meaningful way.

I’d like to be able to wave my magic wand and create some easy fix to the issue of meaningless and hateful conversations via Internet, but the only real solution comes on an individual level — commenters looking to improve the dialogue found online must practice what they preach. Taking down the culture of scathing exchanges requires everyone to put effort into considering the opposing viewpoint and where that view is coming from, then constructively breaking down why, exactly, people find that view to be incorrect.

Christian Wawrzonek, in his column “Taking a breath, bridging the gap,” argues that in arguments about gender disparity, anger and dismissal stem from a fundamental misunderstanding about the different experiences a man and woman can have. As he puts it, “Becoming irritated by another person’s lack of understanding and responding with anger and criticism will solve nothing. If something does not make sense to people and the primary argument they hear is criticism of their lack of understanding, the response naturally will be more anger and frustration.”

I’d like to be able to extend this logic to Internet-based comments. If we’re not actively being constructive — whether refusing to acknowledge we might be wrong or refusing to give someone else’s argument a fair chance — then we are contributing to a toxic environment.

Accountability won’t automatically make our commenting habits more constructive or thoughtful, but it’s a step in the right direction. At the risk of feeding into the pro-Prince/anti-Prince circlejerk, I like that the newspaper’s code of ethics means I have to comment under my real name. When I’m held to my word, I feel obligated to present myself in a way I would want others to perceive me in real life. Accountability, at least for me, improves the comments I leave — I put more thought into my arguments and wording when responding to someone on our Disqus feed, even if they happen to be commenting anonymously.

It’s yet to be seen if Internet flame wars would lighten or become less vitriolic if we as a society were to force commenters to use their real names (and therefore be responsible for what they say), and it’s likely we will never find out. However, there is so much anger in the anonymous facets of our society, and it’s impossible to say whether the detestation will ever subside. Change needs to come from every individual commenter, and though I don’t denounce hiding behind a generic username, I implore those ready to leave a hateful comment to think twice. If we can reframe our thoughts in a way which encourages nuanced, thorough discussion, then the Internet will be a safer and more satisfying place.