Online social networks and anonymity. Can it blend?

Anonymous: Then and Now

For a long time english textbooks have been responsible for the fame of ‘Anonymous’ –a ubiquitous fella whose works had somehow transcended time-space boundaries and spanned multiple centuries and styles. Of course, we know that Mr. Anonymous isn’t just one person, but many different writers whose identity was unknown to documentarians. Yet, well into our adulthood, a lot of us thought of Anonymous as this mysterious and prolific writer.

The age of the Internet and social networks has given our friendly ‘Anonymous,’ a new persona that isn’t quite so benign. Today, he hides safely behind electronic curtains and spews vitriol on unsuspecting victims. He tears apart contradicting opinions, harasses participants, threatens dire consequences and ridicules individuals – sometimes for personal gain, but often just for the pleasure of it. Essentially, he is a cyber-bully.

Anonymity: Good and Bad

However, we know from experience that anonymity in itself is not a bad thing.  History is replete with examples of generous donors who chose to stay nameless to prevent their beneficiaries from feeling obligated. Underground movements have successfully overthrown repressive regimes even when most of their leaders were unknown to the masses. Roman Catholic priests sit in a confession booth listening to believers atone for their sins from behind a window to protect the identity of confessors. Even within the law, we have provisions to safeguard the anonymity of whistleblowers.  Society has always given a silent nod to the need of its constituents to stay anonymous.

Yet, we still have an odd love-hate relationship with anonymity. Internet and social media in particular have made it easy for anyone to create fake accounts and broadcast messages, to a wide audience almost instantaneously. Many online anonymous apps like Whisper, Yik-Yak, Secret (now defunct), ask.fm (acquired by IAC) have made a business out of identity concealment. Very recently, The New York Times reported the story of a three female professors from Eastern Michigan University whose reputations were besmirched by students using YikYak. One of the professors, Margaret Crouch, approached university officials and demanded they take action as she had “been defamed,” and she was “sexually harassed and verbally abused…” Unfortunately, the school was unable to pin down exactly where the posts came from, since the app was anonymous. The harming power of anonymity is beyond limit. Contemporary suspicion of all things anonymous is rooted in the ease with which it can cause havoc and completely destroy lives.

On the one hand, most of us would welcome the chance to voice unfiltered opinions, but on the other we are terrified of the barrage from others who choose to stay anonymous.

The need for a mediator

Online anonymity, as it stands today, is synonymous with unaccountability because it is mostly unmediated and is broadcast in nature. However, as we see from the real-world examples, anonymity is beneficial when a finite number of parties participate in an interaction through a common entity that acts as a mediator.  For example, in the real world, people looking for a romantic partner often approach common friend to find out if the person they are interested in shares their feelings before they open up their hearts. This mediator gauges the level of interest from the other side and waits for the right moment to make the connection. In short, the mediator acts as a buffer.

To mimic this interaction in the online world there must be a common entity – a mediator – that regulates these delicate transactions and provides the anonymity cover.  The role of the mediator is to add efficiency and smoothness to a transaction that could otherwise be fraught with potential mishaps and awkwardness.

A human mediator, though extremely useful, does not scale well. Imagine all of your Facebook friends asking you to act on their behalf with someone in your network. You’d probably un-friend all of them for the sake of your own sanity.

Entrepreneurs have tried to address this “mediator gap” with mixed results…

• App developers (like TrintMe) have built apps over prominent social networks leveraging the social graph created by the underlying network. These apps provide anonymity to users while they are navigating the delicate relationship issues with their friends. However, that mechanism lost most of its value when social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn reconsidered their position on user privacy and restricted access to the user’s social connections in first half of 2015.
• Others apps like Whisper and YikYak have created independent anonymous networks. But all they have done is introduce yet another social network. Most of a user’s network does not follow her to every new game in town hence it makes for a very disjointed experience. As a result, these apps fall short of creating a sticky context. Additionally, user-interactions on these apps are still broadcast in nature, so the original problem remains unaddressed.