Argumentum ad yikyakum

“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” — Oscar Wilde

In high school, I was a big fan of anonymity. I felt that a fear of repercussions often hindered people’s willingness to be outspoken, even about issues that they might have been passionate about or when they could contribute significantly to the conversation. Anonymity offers a stage to a silenced argument: a way to project the oppressed idea. However, I have since become cautious regarding the benefits of anonymity. The recent dialogue on campus and the role of Yik Yak in it highlight why anonymity should be treated carefully. I assert that anonymous forums such as Yik Yak should not be considered forums for dialogue and that anonymous posts on these forums should not by themselves be considered prevailing opinions among the student population. Yik Yak is great as a forum for mildly clever statements and a vent for complaints — let’s leave it as such.

Anonymity offers those who have contemplated and developed thoughts about an issue a platform to present their arguments without the fear that their identities would be a detriment or expose them to ad hominem attacks. But for anonymity to be effective, it requires an especially well-reasoned argument. Arguments with names attached allow the authors to respond to criticism and develop their arguments; anonymous arguments cannot rely on the author’s input to better interpret and develop those ideas.

Which begs the question: can Yik Yak serve as a forum for well-reasoned anonymous arguments? Yik Yak posters don’t have the opportunity to elaborate and explain in limited space, and it’s questionable whether they have taken the effort to present their arguments. Yik Yak is not a forum for dialogue or argumentation and should not be treated as such.

But do anonymous sources offer a window into the thoughts of members of the student body — a student body that will soon become members of society at large and, if history is any indication, an influential part of it? I firmly don’t believe so. Many people who post on Yik Yak clearly confess that they are often either flat-out lying about their true beliefs or posting liberal modifications of their thoughts in hopes of upvotes. I confess to having lied on most posts and have witnessed many friends post provocative arguments that they themselves don’t believe in, hoping to gain fake internet points.

Yik Yak posters don’t post to present an idea that others would learn from, but post to present an idea that others would like and upvote. Strong provocative arguments are especially successful at doing that (like expressing anger at certain groups), even if they don’t represent the poster’s beliefs and aren’t well-reasoned.

Thus, most posts may not indicate any prevailing mentality but are just attempts at fake internet popularity. But are upvotes an indication of student mentality? Probably not. Innumerable psychology studies confirm the dynamics of group mentalities; in the case that a post has more than a certain number of votes, one is instinctively likely to upvote it even if given time to consider it, they wouldn’t agree with it.

Furthermore, I wonder what proportion of the student body is actually on Yik Yak, let alone posting on it. The so-called one percent rule of the Internet is well-documented and states that only one percent of the members create new content on a website, while 99 percent just “lurk.” How much it is true for Yik Yak may be disputed, but it is probably still applicable. Should the voices of such a miniscule proportion of the student body be considered so strongly? Yik Yak posters are what anonymous internet forum commenters became long ago: a small group of people who present arguments without much reasoning and can get away with unreasoned statements.

Yik Yak is great for crude jokes and complaints, but we shouldn’t use it as a forum for arguments/dialogue or consider it as indicative of campus mentality. I would urge everyone to reason and discuss (as Ryan Dukeman urged a few days ago in a column in The Daily Princetonian) rather than pay attention to unreasoned provocative posts on an anonymous forum. Relying on Yik Yak — whether it is to draw attention to campus issues or to martyrize someone for their cause — is not okay; no anonymous platform is appropriate for that type of dialogue.

Avaneesh Narla is a sophomore from Calcutta, India. He can be reached at avaneesh.narla@princeton.edu.