Online Disinhibition and the Role of Anonymity in Social Media

How can Social Media sites create an environment where users behave in a more responsible way?

Online discourse will always be different from real-life in-person discussions. This can largely be explained through the lens of the Online Disinhibition Effect. This phenomenon refers to the lack of restraint one feels when communicating online in comparison to communicating in-person. The key influencing factors for this are — anonymity, empathy deficit, and asynchronous communication.

Simply explained:

1. Anonymity — When people have the opportunity to separate their actions online from their in-person lifestyle and identity, they feel less vulnerable about self-disclosing and acting out.

2. Empathy deficit — No eye-contact or body language feedback. Without any facial interaction it makes it harder to perceive others online as people with feelings.

3. Asynchronous Communication — One can send a message out into the internet and not get an immediate reply. Therefore, one doesn’t have to think about what is said.

It is important to note that academic research further categorises this into ‘Benign’ and ‘Toxic’ forms of Online Disinhibition.

Benign Disinhibition

The ‘Benign’, or friendly form, highlights all the positive aspects of anonymity. It allows users to feel more comfortable expressing their views, emotions and ideas that they might otherwise feel inhibited from sharing with people they know/or to whom they are identifiable.

Real-world examples include:

· A school teacher wants to share content and interact with friends online but is concerned that their professional image will be harmed if their students/respective parents see it.

· A LGBTQ+ teenager joins an anonymous online forum seeking advice and support, concerned about the reaction of their immediate family and friends.

· A budding journalist/artist wants to share their creative works with the outside world but is insecure about how it may be received by their friend group.

Anonymity brings with it a sense of freedom and privacy to navigate and engage with whatever content you wish and offers an alternative social space to the real world. This does not always mean there will be negative implications and it’s important to preserve this benefit.

Toxic Disinhibition

The ‘Toxic’ form is unfortunately all too well understood. This relates to negative aspects of anonymity including trolling, hate speech, criminality and deliberately spreading misinformation and inciting conflict. Here, users use their anonymity as a shield. They feel immune from any means of sanction.

Real-world examples:

· A man who knows his racist views are unacceptable and generally keeps them to himself, but uses an anonymous account to use racist slurs and antagonise people in comments sections online.

· A teenager uses his online anonymity to harass and bully a fellow classmate, creating a forum where other anonymous users slander and dox the victim.

· Someone with strong political views who debates issues respectfully in person, but when online, feels able to use inflammatory language and bombards anyone who disagrees with his view with insults and exaggerations.

Key Distinctions between discourse enabled by ‘Toxic Disinhibition’ and ‘Benign Disinhibition’

The key distinction between communication enabled by toxic disinhibition and benign disinhibition is consent. Users who wish to take advantage of the benign effects of anonymity want to communicate with users who actively choose to engage with them. They are seeking discussion and engagement. In contrast, most of the communication in the toxic category is unsolicited, unwelcome and does not warrant response. It is explicitly designed to upset the other person/group.

For this reason, it is important that social media design features are in place to allow users a choice of who can reach them with direct messaging or comment on their content. Privacy settings should allow for this, to ensure that only friends/accepted followers can private message, allowing users to block unwelcome messages before they are sent.

Other elements of the platform should preserve anonymous posting and interaction, thus maintaining the benign anonymous users’ ability to express themselves. As long as content lies within the code of conduct, there should be free discussion. This should allow for the best of both worlds of anonymity.

Anonymity and its role in negative behaviour

“Anonymity is one of the principle factors that creates the disinhibition effect. When people have the opportunity to separate their actions online from their in-person lifestyle and identity, they feel less vulnerable about self-disclosing and acting out.” — Psychologist John Suler, 2004

An increasing body of evidence confirms the link between anonymity and various forms of toxic online behaviour.

• This 2017 Pew Research Center report stated that while 41% of all Americans have experienced online harassment, over half of all victims (54%) of online harassment felt unable to determine the identity of their perpetrator.
• A 2012 study found a significant increase in ‘flaming’ behaviour (the use of hostile expressions toward others in online communication) with those who enjoyed an ‘online sense of unidentifiability’ in computer-mediated discussions.
• A 2014 study looking at the comments section underneath newspaper articles found that those allowing anonymous accounts to comment had almost twice as many uncivil comments as those requiring real-name accounts to comment. ‘Removing anonymity’ was a recommended strategy from the authors.
• A 2015 study showed Twitter users were more likely to create and share sexist content when given anonymous accounts rather than using an account with personal information included.

Public demand for change in how current Social Media sites preserve anonymity

There is growing unease in the public sphere calling for policy change and improvement in existing social platforms to verify their users.

• A 2021 Pew Research Center report states “About half of Americans say permanently suspending users if they bully or harass others (51%) or requiring users of these platforms to disclose their real identities (48%) would be very effective in helping to reduce harassment or bullying on social media.”
• An online petition in the UK calling for government-led policy change to enforce social media sites to ‘ban anonymous users’ secured 100,000 signatures within a few hours. Online Safety legislation is now addressing anonymous harmful behaviour.

While the debate of whether to ‘ban anonymity’ or ‘save anonymity’ continues to wage on, ultimately it is all to the advantage of current Big Tech social media platforms. They can frame it as ‘a problem impossible to solve’ which discourages any nuanced discussion to find the middle ground. Fake, anonymous, or abusive users contribute to reactive discourse. To Big Tech companies, more users = more engagement = more monetisation.

Waivlength

With Waivlength, there is a new approach. By verifying each user as they onboard the platform via ‘Know Your Customer’ protocols, it immediately removes the ability of bots or duplicate accounts to join the platform. It also acts as a barrier towards users’ ‘online sense of unidentifiability’ and thus can reduce the likelihood of toxic disinhibition. This also means that users who are banned from the platform for breaching the code of conduct will not simply be able to create another account as with current platforms. This sanction of an enforceable permanent ban will make people think responsibly about how they use the platform.

The culture and ethos of Waivlength as a verified, responsible network operating on the values of fair appraisal and recognition will also deter users to act in an uncivil, toxic manner. Once the early user base embodies this set of values, it will not be an appealing platform for online trolls to onboard. The KYC verification is a barrier of entry that will likely ward off those individuals.

On the flipside, Waivlength offers the option for users to create a username and navigate the platform anonymously if they choose. This will still cultivate an environment for all the positive aspects of anonymity to prosper. As mentioned above, the option is also available for users to reduce their interaction with anonymous users who they are not familiar with.

Forthcoming Updates

Waivlength is a grant recipient from the Algorand Foundation. While developers and advisors continue to work hard over the months ahead on platform build and securing external investment, it is clear that this platform has the potential to make a huge global impact as a competitor to current mainstream social media.

Learn more at www.waivlength.io where you can find a more detailed whitepaper and roadmap for the development of the platform, sign-up for the launch of the dApp and find contact details for the team.

Special Mention

Big thanks to David Babbs (Twitter — @davidbabbs) who has written lots of excellent content in regard to anonymity and social media design. His work with ‘OpenDemocracy’ and ‘Clean Up The Internet’ were very helpful for both platform design and the writing of this article.