Internet Anonymity – truth or noise?
By Shelley Burns
One promise of the Internet was that it offered a Utopian vision of collaboration – a community of truth-seekers motivated by their desire to improve. But somehow, it came about that the Internet Utopia was only possible through anonymous commentary. That meant that people’s names must be hidden, shielded to promote the free exploration of ideas, and protected against the burden of an identity.
Has web anonymity been a boon or a bust for collaborative idea exchange?
The anticipated power of the Internet was that it would create a platform for the masses who previously lacked a broad medium to communicate and debate. The dream was that it would drive communication exchange in heretofore unimaginable ways and complex issues would be more readily and comprehensively resolved. It meant that enhanced understanding and compromise would rule – even the thoughtful give-and-take at the local diner could be shared beyond the participants. There would be a wide-ranging, universal diner conversation to improve the world.
This Utopian idea exchange requires that each truth-seeker modify their position based on the voices of other truth-seekers. They integrate their concerns and worries into their solution and repeat it back. Similarly the other truth-seekers do the same with their own issues and concerns. It is not a zero-sum, winner-take-all game, but a process that acknowledges the situational complexities and the diverse experiences of others. Through the threaded back and forth conversation – “What if …?” “What about …?” – issues surface and are dealt with, and each participant shifts their perspective until a solution emerges. The collaborative result is a step forward, an improvement of the status quo, an aggregation of the best ideas.
However, Internet anonymity required truth-seekers to find another method to organize and distinguish their comments. They developed online personae, which they promptly name using words representative of their new images. Internet identities abound with characterizations contained within the name itself – political leanings, lifestyle choices, job aspirations and more.
But the problem is that once your persona is defined by your name, you lose your ability to shift your point of view. Imagine two commentators, “Red or Dead” and “2Blue4U.” Will they be able to really collaborate around a situation or idea? Will true exchange occur or will their debate be a furious, noisy volley of increasingly polarized and ad-hominem remarks? Similarly, how likely is anyone to consider a response, no matter how well thought out, from “CrazyCarrieRN” or “WillWork4Beer”?
No, anonymity on the Internet hasn’t progressed to the truth-seeking, collaborative Utopia we envisioned when Al Gore “invented” it. The Internet identities we circumscribe for ourselves inhibit our capacity to change our point of view. When our point of view doesn’t change, we can’t grow intellectually. And without forward movement on individual thinking there will be no collaborative improvement of the whole.
That’s why you’re encouraged to be yourself on the HMC KnowledgeWeb. Your name. Your title. Your hospital. Because we want your views, not your Internet persona.
Shelley Burns is head of knowledge management at HMC.
