Constant connectedness coupled with anonymity can certainly lead to misbehavior and cruelty. However while used with discretion it can also be beneficial. Many believe that the anger exposed online is due to being able to be completely anonymous and that this anger is the reason for our society’s discourse. I hold the belief that while anonymity can be the cause of much unrest on the internet, it is up to the individual to be responsible in an age where we are always connected, and that saying our society’s discourse is due to this new technological era is simply a way for people to place the blame on something other than themselves.
The unintended effects of our constant connectedness are that this generation is always expecting immediate results. We could be in the middle of a city, nowhere near any reference sources or computers, but thanks to our phones and 3G connections, we can find the answer to practically anything at any time. Our connectedness also leads to a lack of privacy, however I believe that is our own fault. If we didn’t want people knowing what we were doing all the time, then we shouldn’t be updating all of our social networking sites. The option of doing all things anonymous in addition to being constantly connected often times leads to misbehavior and cruelty. From identity theft to internet bullying to invasion of privacy, the anonymity can turn many people off from using the internet, “According to most recent surveys, privacy and especially anonymity are the fundamental issues of concern for most Internet users, ranked higher than issues like ease-of-use, spam-mail, security and cost” (Gritzalis).
On the other hand, I also believe people abuse the privileges we have been given by modern technology and end up involved in internet bullying, harassment, or general invasion of privacy. Although this behavior is linked to our new obsessive connectedness, we as consumers should know better than to take advantage of such availabilities. Anonymity plus connectivity can be beneficial instead of the negativity that seems to be coupled with it. Being able to voice yourself without judgement of other is clearly one of the benefits, “People can express themselves without fear. That's the reason well-run democracies have secret ballots” (Dvorak)
The collective anger that is unleashed online, I believe, is just a means of an outlet for people to vent. For instance, if somebody were to be upset about something and they wanted to talk about it, but had nobody to talk to (whether nobody really cared, or they didn’t want others to know how they really felt), the internet is the perfect place to type out, or record your feelings. This can be done so anonymously so that the user is able to express their thoughts completely candid without ever having to reveal their identity, and sometimes they can even form a connection with somebody who deals with a similar problem, “Chat rooms are full of people who hate their jobs, their spouses, their lifestyles—and openly discuss these feelings anonymously” (Dvorak). As a result, other people who view this online are usually able to form some sort of response that could agree or disagree with the original poster.
In terms of describing our society’s discourse, I would have to disagree and say that we are not discoursed in anyway. We might be connected 24/7 and rely more on it than other generations, but has it really seemed to cause severe problems? I don’t think so. I believe that although there are some problems that stem from this new phenomenon, it has brought about more benefits that negativities. Some might say that the anger unleashed online is a negative part of always being able to be on the internet, and being able to do so anonymously, but think about how different it would be if those angry people didn’t have internet. Sure the internet allows them to broadcast their anger to the entire world, but without the internet they’d still be angry people. It would just be a different medium in which they’d be portraying their anger.
Dvorak, John C. "Pros and Cons of Anonymity." PC Mag. ZiffDavis, 30 Dec. 2002.
Web. 30 Sept. 2010. <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/
Gritzalis, Stefanos. Privacy and Anonymity in the Digital Era.
Bradford, , GBR: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2006. p 117.
I think you raised a really solid point in saying that the blame should be on the consumer, not the Internet itself, and I completely agree with you. My paper focused on the ways the Internet has decreased our society’s moral standards, and I think we are on the same page that it has definitely done so to an extent. I think you have extended the same points to an even greater degree and I agree with you one-thousand percent. The Internet is not to blame, it is the people. Bullies would be bullies whether they had the Internet to enable them or not, and thieves would be thieves.
ReplyDeleteYour last line really resonated with me after I finished reading your posting. “Sure the internet allows them to broadcast their anger to the entire world, but without the internet they’d still be angry people. It would just be a different medium in which they’d be portraying their anger.” You bring up a really good point that, for me, was the entire theme of your paper and it summed up all of your topics very neatly. People certainly abuse the privileges of the Internet and the chances of that ever changing are very slim because it’s not about the freedom the Internet provides, it’s about the impulses and desires of the consumer and whether or not they can control themselves.
I think you make a really good argument in saying that it is our responsibility to control how we use the Internet, and I have nothing to argue against it because I completely agree. It can be a gateway drug to do harm or it can be a wonderful, beneficial tool to enhance society.