Anonymity vs. Invisibility: Improving Social Media By Separating One From The Other

Anonymity has an earned place within free speech. Some might argue otherwise, that anonymity is a foil to freedom, freedom being something to take ownership of, anonymity being the thing that castigates this ownership. This argument, in a way, perverts Washington’s idea that:

[T]he freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.

Even behind anonymity, the freedom can still “be taken away,” but — and this is the perversion — some will argue that anonymity extricates itself from the possible slaughter. It’s the skin-in-the-game argument, that speaking from behind a mask waives the risk that precipitates from one’s own words.

Granted, I’m stretching Washington’s sentiment quite a bit, but it’s the unstretched version that’s the universal truth: without anonymity, the freedom is perilous, and all of us — those named and those not — will suffer “like sheep, to the Slaughter.” To the naysayers of anonymity, it is a wretched truth, that anonymity is a dent on the landscape of freedom — dangerous, messy, sometimes caustic — but forever an obligatory and guiding landmark.

Is Anonymity An Improvable Entity?

But that’s not to say anonymity can’t be improved upon. It’s a strange statement … the untouched idea that facelessness can be elevated to something better and more nuanced. Facelessness — at the adult level — is not the same as Halloween at the child’s level. For children, anonymity is a plaything; thus subject to the whims of fun and choice. But at the adult level, anonymity is a serious offensive (and let’s make no mistakes … anonymity is as much a weapon as it is a freedom to move forward). As such, anonymous adults must abandon their childish fantasies of Halloween stores and superhero costumes. Anonymity — at the adult level — is like the gun; a freedom but not something for kids to play with.

Within social media, anonymity — the gun — needs a reboot. But before you detract … before you shrink from the idea of “cultivating” anonymity (as opposed to allowing its invasive and unfettered growth), let’s share the page: we together agree that anonymity is a bulwark to free speech (point made above); we together agree that the subtraction of anonymity is the subtraction of much needed voices (i.e., often the oppressed and powerless). But, and here’s where we unshare (I’ve got the pen again), anonymity is not absolute, no more than any freedom or legal space within our freedom collective is absolute.

Separating the Anonymous From The Invisible

So if anonymity is not absolute, how can it be improved within social media? Within the social space, he who is anonymous looks the same as he who is identified. Avatar, banner, name … for the anonymous, these identifiers are all subject to creative whims and craftsmanship, all malleable within the same gradations that the identified are afforded. But this doesn’t mirror real life; it doesn’t reflect the landmark (anonymity) that alters the greater landscape (free speech). In real life, the maskless face and the face with a mask are clearly separable. This is why Guy Fawkes on the sidewalk is a wholly different being than Guy Fawkes on Twitter. The first has no face amongst the faces; the second is a digital rendition that ghosts all the other (millions of them) renditions.

For the betterment of social, anonymity must be drawn out; invisibility retracted.* Some ways to do this (and any variations thereof) include:

· Restricting banners/avatars to more clearly signal an anonymous account.**

· Color coding feeds to separate the masked from the unmaked.

· Stylizing copy/text to reflect a writer’s anonymity.

· Auto-generating — at the post level — a designation of “Anonymous.”

As I said, these are “for the betterment of social.” Anonymity, in terms of speech, is both a change agent and the greasing of silent voices. But in social, because anonymity is passed out like candy to children, it is often a destructive agent and a grinding upon free voices. Within social media, anonymity gives voice to the powerless … and that’s a very good thing. But one’s lack of power is a fragile thing, and when postured behind anonymity, it tends — on such a grand scale — to morph into retribution — on the smallest scale.

Moreover, anonymity running rampant deteriorates into the eating of itself. There’s a vast difference behind the idealism of Black Lives Matter anonymity (and the powerless who choose it) and the frailty of anonymity for its own sake. Anonymity, as a wellspring of revolution, widens the freedom to speak; anonymity, unbound and unfocused, swings the other way. And this is because the “faceless” and their unbound fury can trample the “masked” and whatever revolution they try to speak.

“Chilling”: A Social Media “Less Than”

The term “chilling” will be bantered about now … as in “Any social media restrictions will have a chilling effect upon free speech.” But we’ve passed the “nonsense” stage when it comes to the clear equating of freedoms and social media. I say “nonsense” because separating social media from America’s forums of speech is no longer nonsense … it’s simply become the truth. It’s like comparing spit and gold. The historic luster of speech — that gold we clutch so greedily — tends to wane within the raw, organic sputum of social media.

The true nonsense is thinking of speech — within social media — as some kind of real-world freedom; i.e., the same freedom you might wield from a street corner. If social media speech can suffer (and I mean “suffer” not as an injury but as a force upon a once unbreakable stone) political restrictions, warning labels, censorship, and suspension (and I’m not arguing against any of these), then it sure as heck can suffer a tweaking to anonymity IF these tweaks promote true anonymity over the skulking, the invisible, and IF these tweaks give a structured face to the unstructured hoard that sometimes feasts on the voiceless, the powerless, and the broken.

— — —

*In the case of parody, similar identifiers-i.e., different gradations-might also be applied.

**This might include “anonymous” banners that align with social causes and larger movements. However, there would be nothing to prevent someone from hijacking these banners.

Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.