The Internet is a wondrous, shiny place. One can learn how to fix a transmission, the names of commanders from ancient battles and see photos of our loved ones half a world away uploaded just seconds earlier. All this data is readily accessible with a few keystrokes, mouse taps and swipes of our thumbs.
For the most part, what we do online is private from the prying eyes of the government, even more so if we use virtual private networks, known as VPNs an overlay network that uses virtualization tools, encryption and tunneling protocol to extend one’s private network across a public network like the general Internet. Some VPNs are offered as a paid service to mask a user’s Internet Protocol, i.e., their computer’s address. Other VPN providers provide this service for free through apps or websites, making money through ads the users see or must click through to access the VPN service. But in order to use many websites, apps, services and social media networks, we consent to give the companies that own these online tools access to personal data, search histories and sometimes use of the content we share or post not to monitor and police our activities but so those companies can better target us with ads, content and offers.
“We” are the “products” these companies sell to advertisers.
Whether this capitalization of our data is benign or malicious depends on the data companies, the advertisers and our own susceptibility to online advertising tactics.
But one of the major problems with the Internet is not how others may use us, but how we use the platforms on which we spend hours and hours every day. Coined by psychologist John Suler in 2004, online internet users fall exhibit a temporary psychological disorder known as the online disinhibition effect.
When people can post content and comments anonymously with a pseudonym or username, they can be more honest about their feelings and open emotionally and reveal how they really feel about political, social or personal issue. While this lets people connect with others around the world and is a bright and beautiful gift for our Information Age society, this disinhibition also means people can be nasty or cruel, spread rumors and lies, or spew their inner fear, racism, sexism or hate into vitriol for the world to see and recoil from that they never would in person or if their real, legal name, hometown and photograph were attached to what they wrote. For over two decades, online scandals have involved elected officials, civic leaders and celebrities as well as private persons suffering the disinhibition effect and getting caught after writing someone hateful or impulsive, ending their careers or destroying their reputations.
Online “trolls” often write things just to get a rise out of other users and many are to shy, cowardly or disinterested to say such things in person in public, but instead do so online for the “rush” of stirring up a hornet’s nest of comments. Most people don’t want to see the real world burn, but the online world doesn’t really “exist,” so why not burn it down to the foundation?
At public meetings, people meet face-to-face. In journalism, authors, journalists and publishers are required to sign their names to what they pen. But Internet’s anonymity gives people the false belief that the rules of libel, good behavior, honesty and fact-checking don’t apply. Some local blogs and boards allow users to post anonymously or under unverified names, and much of the debate is not on the topics or the merits of opinions, but about who is actually who, and discrediting each other with ad hominem attacks. The users very well could be all the same person arguing with themselves.
Other blogs use fake “authors,” post AI-generated posts and comments, pretending to be real Sedona residents so that a one-person operation can masquerade as a news source with a readership, tricking those who stumble across them.
If a website allows people to comment under false or unverified names, avoid it. If facts aren’t sourced or footnoted for independent verification, don’t trust it. If a post claims “people say” or “an official” or “a staff member” without naming names, don’t trust it.
The sole exception to anonymity are whistleblowers who could suffer real-world consequences for leaking secrets. But they are not “anonymous” to their journalist contacts, who must go through extensive steps to prove they are who they say they are and that the material is legitimate — this anonymity is not granted lightly and the journalist knows exactly who they are and will be willing go to jail to protect their identities.
Just because it’s online doesn’t make it true. Just because it comments on news, doesn’t make it journalism. Much of the distrust in the “media” stems from feelings about this slanted commentary by pundits, lobbyists, operatives with agendas and anonymous bloggers, not from an actual distrust in professional, real-world journalists reporting on the news who take legal and ethical ownership of what they write.
Our readers will note our stories and columns have bylines. Every letter writer on our Opinion page must sign his or her name and provide our staff with a street address and telephone number so we can verify they exist before we print their opinion.
Americans don’t allow witnesses to testify anonymously in court, so why would we rely on anonymity to shape public opinion?
