Sunday, September 14, 2014

The Ring of Gyges, the Internet, and Anonymity

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw
In The Republic, Plato introduces the Ring of Gyges thought experiment. This intellectual device—a ring of invisibility—has since become a standard in fantasy and science fiction literature and movies. What would Tolkien’s The Hobbit have been without the ring of invisibility? In Plato’s thought experiment, the possessor of this ring of invisibility uses it to seduce the Queen, murder the King, and usurp the throne. In a column in Time, Walter Isaacson, the president and CEO of the Aspen Institute, wishes to conjure up his own Platonic magical ring. This ring would allow him “to know and publicly reveal the names and addresses of all people who anonymously post vulgar rants and racist tweets.”

Isaacson complains that anonymity makes one less civil. He contends that “if we all thought we were subject to being rated, we might work harder to be on our best behavior.” He fantasizes of a world where everyone is rating everyone else in a Yelp or TripAdvisor fashion. While he admits that such a world would be Orwellian, he sighs with pleasure: “[I]magine how much better we would behave.”

A few thoughts are in order here. First, any person is already free to use the Internet to rate others. Providers of goods and services can be rated on Yelp, TripAdvisor, HealthGrades, Rate My Professor, etc. as Isaacson acknowledges. In a free market, those who provide goods and services in an honest and reliable fashion and provide excellent and courteous customer service are likely to best succeed. This is not new or revolutionary.

Secondly, and more importantly, online anonymity is good. The positive consequences of anonymity on the Internet outweigh the negative ones. Does anonymity embolden jerks to be rude? Sure. Discussions on internet forums quite often degenerate quickly into name calling. However, anonymity also emboldens truth telling. If no online speech were anonymous, then speech would be chilled. Who would ever blow the whistle against corruption in government or in business if he or she could not publish or post these revelations anonymously? How many fewer people would openly criticize the government or other powerful persons or entities if he or she could not do it anonymously online?

Thirdly, any person who does not wish to mix it up with the rude anonymous unwashed Internet masses can avoid websites and forums that allow anonymous posting of comments. One can exclusively frequent sites that require registration. One can even develop and exclusively use sites that require very detailed user information—a name, a verified e-mail address, a photo, a physical address, etc.—in order to post comments.

Fourthly, those like Isaacson, who lament how anonymity leads to rudeness which prevents online discourse from being “elevated” (whatever that means), confuse etiquette with morality. It is not difficult to imagine well cultured monsters. Imagine the Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942. Nazi senior officials gathered to discuss the “Final Solution” to the Jewish problem—namely, the deportation of Jews to Poland where they were to be murdered. One can imagine that these Nazis were well behaved and well spoken at this conference. Perhaps they never raised their voices. Perhaps they never used vulgar words. Harmless euphemisms instead of anti-Semitic epithets. Maybe they even sipped their tea just right with their pinkies extended. Certainly none belched at the table. Contrast this with a typical day in the British Parliament. MPs screaming at one another like inmates in an asylum and using language that would make the saltiest of sailors blush. If the etiquette “elevated the discourse” at Wannsee, is that better?

Finally, and most importantly, the less anonymity there is on the Internet, the less privacy there is from government. One can imagine that there was a lot of smiling and politeness in Stasi East Germany during the Cold War. In a world without any possibility of anonymity, there is less and less privacy. For anyone who loves free speech, rudeness and vulgarity is well worth the assurance that one can speak his or her mind online without fear of reprisal from the government, powerful private entities, society, or anyone else.

(For more analysis of the First Amendment, natural rights, and the Real Culture War, read my book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong available now in print and digital on Amazon.)






No comments:

Post a Comment