
As a bit of a follow-up to my last post about net anonymity . . .
"You can claim anonymity, but there is a range of things that a judge will use to determine whether you have used your anonymity responsibly" [my emphasis]
That's a provocative quote from this article about recent legal decisions unmasking people's internet anonymity, and the precedents being set. What's also interesting about the article, though, is its discussion of how and why this might not even matter.
See, the article argues that the rise of social networking (among other things) is undermining net anonymity on a basic, socio-cultural level. In the future, apparently, we'll almost always be authenticated & named on the net – just as usually we are on Facebook and in real life. Correspondingly, future internet forums & chats will be much nicer than they are now, because if we're identified then we're responsible for what we say – just as we are in real life. The article points out that, for example, nasty anonymous twitterers are never popular. Only the authentically real (or known fake) identities maintain an audience.
"It might be entertaining to post anonymously, but it's not very interesting to read . . . When people are going to be named, whether it's their real name or a persistent pseudonym, it takes them more of an effort to maintain the credibility of their name." [my emphasis]
Interesting, huh? Does it sound plausible to you?
More importantly – does using your real name make you a nicer person? And is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
Enjoy yr weekend, folks :)


