The Internet’s Anonymity Problem

Recently I stumbled across a disturbing video on my newsfeed that was getting a lot of engagement. The video, known as Plandemic, described the Covid19 crisis and how it is fabricated in order to generate profits for corporations. Normally I would shrug these types of events off as the crazy parts of the internet outmaneuvering the algorithm that governs my news feed. However this stuck with me because in a crisis where over 80,000 people have died in America alone, the fact that we are debating our government's intentions is shocking. I started to wonder where this video came from and why someone would create it. After doing a search online about the producer and the leading doctor dissecting the Covid19 response the purpose was clear. This is a propaganda piece and one sided by design to counter main street media. I was not shocked that this piece existed, I was shocked that so many people still can’t analyze the media effectively. The anonymous nature of social networks enabled the viral spread of sensationalized content. 

In the real world the sense of identity is derived from one's own existence. The physical presence and interaction from one being to another forms the real, physical network. A network where intentions may be unknown but the source is readily apparent. This fundamental pillar enables critical thinking, which is a second class right on social networks at best. Is it not strange when you receive a random message from a “friend” asking you to click a malicious link? The perplexing moment when you receive a friend request from your grandma who you are already friends with? The fear we stomach when we realize our private conversations may have been read, because a friend’s account was hacked? A shared graphic or satirical news site without sources or data? These events in the real world would cause you to question one's identity and motivation. Instead we brush it off as a minor inconvenience because it is the digital world. This leads us to the false idea that because these interactions happen online they are safe and inconsequential - causing no damage to the real world. It couldn’t be further from the truth.

In 2017 700,000 Rohingya fled Myanmar to escape mass genocide. The Myanmar government created hundreds of fake accounts and crafted inflammatory content to create an uninhabitable environment for the Rohingya people. This cruel event was orchestrated using the same  tools that marketers use every day. The advanced analytics that these social networks provide enable anyone to create an online campaign with optimal and targeted impact. The confusion that swept the region pitted local communities against each other until it reached a breaking point. Starting on August 25, 2017 6,700 men, women, and children across 288 villages were raped and subsequently murdered because of this propaganda. It’s clear these merciless events were the direct result of the lack of transparency on social networks.  

However lack of transparency is not always bad especially when we look at the gay rights movement. For example, in Malaysia it is illegal to be openly gay and is punishable with prison time and physical beatings. In these places it is hard to be your true self, and the only escape is finding a community in the digital world. You can imagine the feeling these individuals get when they see someone like them living openly and free. Building a life with who they choose to love and live in a society that respects them. They live without fear that their government or a person full of hate will threaten their livelihood and their safety. That freedom is only available because they can express themselves anonymously on social platforms. 

Many of us have experienced dating in the 21st century - exchanging intimate pictures, occupational details, and even sexual interest with friendly looking profiles. These innocent interactions create a sense of comfort. You excitedly share these profiles with your friends and discuss what opportunities this may lead to in the future. When the moment finally arrives to meet in the real world the sense of butterflies often follow. The thought that you know someone just because you have casually chatted off and on for a few weeks makes meeting them seem appropriate. All too often however,  that idea comes crashing to the floor when your date never arrives leaving you to question why your dream date ghosted  you. Even in cases when you do get a face-to-face meeting the outcome may be even worse. That profile that you have been chatting with is 10 years younger than the person sitting next to you. Now you are struggling to figure out how to politely decline the date. In extreme cases, that meeting results in their unsuspecting death, which has happened on Craigslist and Tinder. The lack of transparency and strong verifiable identity  provided a false sense of security that led to a broken heart or worse.

After the 2016 US election, Brexit, and genocide of the Rohingya people - social networks began to realize their impact on the actual world. They implemented policies and hired staff in an effort to moderate content, and started notifying users when content is not factually accurate. This has created an interesting paradigm for people in the digital world. For years these platforms have allowed this content to live and spread unobstructed with the only goal to collect likes and shares that often reinforce a user’s own world view - driving each user to create “viral” content at any cost. Now the system is challenging how factually accurate that worldview and that content is. The impact of this new strategy is unknown, but some critics would argue that this gives these platforms control of what is factual and infringes on their rights to free speech. 

The relationship that is formed with social networks creates a second reality. In this reality you can be anyone and say anything which can be good or bad. This balance of “truth” and  “misinformation” will only get more confusing and harder to differentiate as more people join the digital world. How should we think about campaigns that result in violence? How do we manage freedom of speech when that information may not be factually accurate? Should super effective targeted marketing tools exist when they can be weaponized? I do not have the answers to these questions but I want to start the conversation. The first step to solving a problem is recognizing there is one.