Real Identities vs. The Internet's Ring of Gyges

            Glaucon, an associate of Socrates, once used a parable, the “ring of Gyges,” to illustrate how accountability controls human behavior.  He proposed that if a man were given a ring that would make him invisible, he would commit a plethora of misdeeds that he would not otherwise do, simply because no one would know who he was.  

            Internet users today have a sort of ring of Gyges – anonymous user names.  To combat the foul and sometimes merciless online content of such “invisible” users, several websites are adopting “real name” policies.  Facebook, Google, and Huffington Post are a few of these sites that encourage, and in some cases, require users to make their identity known when posting online.

Safety – the main concern behind real name policies

            Who here remembers Rebecca Black’s 2011 song, “Friday”?  Say what you want about it, but it’s no question that the pop song went viral in a matter of days.  With her instant fame came a downpour of mean-spirited jibes, criticism, and even anonymous death threats from online viewers.  I checked out the music video just today (see the link above) and even still, 6 years later, spite litters the comments section.  Some of these commenters have first and last names listed (presumably their real names); some do not.  The point is that then and now, anyone can pose death threats to a teenage girl for something as trivial as disliking Black’s “partying, partying, yeah!” and mask their identity while doing it!  The right to remain anonymous certainly falls under the concept of privacy, but several websites are attempting to combat the abuse of this right – e.g. threatening someone’s life for the sake of some silly song. 

            That is why Facebook asks its users to identify themselves by “the name they go by in their everyday life” and why Huffington Post requires readers to link their comments to a Facebook profile – to promote “safety” and “civility.”  The intent of these real name policies are noble; we’re trying to protect the Rebecca Black’s of tomorrow, aren’t we?

But is identification really going to guarantee a safer online community?

            Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.  Domenick Scudera wrote a scathing criticism about Facebook’s authentic name policy**, including its requirement to submit documents verifying the identity.  Scudera posed an argument that pokes a hole in the safety-conscious aspect of Facebook’s real name policy.

“Facebook is filled with fake names. But because most of these names sound authentic, the profiles are not flagged. If you are an online predator, use “Bob Smith” as your name. Facebook will most likely ignore you. If this is how Facebook is keeping “our community safe,” we are all in trouble.”

            I’m sure most of us can think of a Facebook persona that is not who they claim to be, but their Facebook profile exists anyway.  I became “friends” with my cousin’s cat a few years ago before I became friends with my actual cousin on Facebook.  So, while we can appreciate Facebook’s efforts to keep the online community safe, it seems that requiring real names may be too simplistic of an approach.

“Incivility” – the other downside of anynomyity

            Not surprisingly, many newspapers have grown impatient with anonymous readers word-vomiting hostility all over their articles. One psychologist points out that anonymous comments are more than twice as likely to be uncivil than identified ones.  They also are more likely to be one-sided and not as well thought-out, because an anonymous commenter may not feel as obligated to thoroughly consider his/her point of view. 

            Washington Post even conducted an informal experiment on how anonymous comments impacted other readers’ attitudes about the news piece.  They found that anonymous comments, whether they were negative or positive, decreased the audience’s opinion of the article.  So, it looks like anonymity is a source of annoyance for reporters and readers alike. 

            But would a real names policy stop the hateful comments online?  Facebook’s attempt to filter out online predators through a real name policy has proven to be flawed, so how can we be sure dissolving anonymity would remedy the negativity online?  As the LA Times put it:

“The problem is, requiring people to comment under their real names is no guarantee that they'll behave less like trolls.”  

Too little, too late

            It is evident all over the Internet that too many users are taking advantage of the Internet’s “ring of Gyges.”  But enforcing a real name policy is not going to stop dangerous individuals or derogatory content.  It has its benefits, but it is inadequate to cover this large of an issue.  Individual entities, such as Huffington Post, are certainly within their rights to require identification of users if they deem that to best for their company.  But enforcing identification all over the web would create more disturbances than it would solve.  

 Footnote:

** In response to Scudera and others’ criticism, Facebook made the statement that it does not require users to post their legally given name, but the name they go by on an everyday basis.  See also this news update on Facebook’s name policy.