Kyle Cornman

November 2, 2015
ENGL 137H
Professor Fonash
The Era of Social Media
A Misstep?
"You have one identity. The days of you having a different image for your work friends
or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly.
Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity (Kirkpatrick). 2004
marked a monumental year in the history of the internet, as Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg
founded his new social networking site for students at the college, thefacebook.com. In just a
couple years his little site, under the new guise: facebook.com, would expand to become the
most used social networking apparatus on the web. In 2010 he expressed his aforementioned
views on the concept of a single identity for both online and offline use. These controversial
comments fell completely in line with his ideology of web transparency, in which it is expected
that users carry their identity online with them. The interactions that they have online, therefore,
are applied to their complete identity and credibility. Though many, mostly individuals
concerned with internet privacy, have spoken out against such ideology being applied online,
many sites have taken, with minor alteration, to conforming to this construct. This, however, is a
new development. For the first decade or more of the existence of the World Wide Web, the
majority of sites were built, perhaps by necessity, on a platform characterized far more by
anonymity than transparency. This stark transition in how we are expected to interact with one
another online sparks a number of ethical questions, primarily whether it is beneficial that a
transparent platform dominate the modern web, as bastions of anonymity become more and more
scarce.

Kyle Cornman
November 2, 2015
ENGL 137H
Professor Fonash
To begin with, it is important to establish some grounding of what the terms transparency
and anonymity really refer to. The two terms prominently came to the media forefront in contrast
with one another in 2010, when a user on namesake.com produced an info graphic comparing the
ideological concepts expressed by two well-known figures on the internet. Espousing an
ideology of internet transparency was Mark Zuckerberg, the aforementioned creator of
Facebook. Opposing this view with his own ideology of internet anonymity was Christopher
Poole, known by the users of his own site (as it was at the time; in 2015 he left the project),
4chan, as m00t. The graphic suggested a number of pros for either camp, making note of how
Zuckerbergs transparent platform ensures accountability and credibility among those hoping to
inform or persuade others online. Supporting Pooles anonymous platform, the graphic referred
to how anonymous users are unfettered to explore ideas and espouse controversial opinions
without fear of ridicule.
Of course, both these approaches to internet interaction have their own dangers
associated with them as well. The most glaring danger of the transparent platform championed
by Zuckerberg would probably be its complete lack of privacy. Facebook, is at its core a massive
repository of personal information attributed to a pool of hundreds of millions. An individuals
pictures, associations, and preferences can all be found with minimal effort by just about anyone
with some knowledge of how to manipulate the sites minimal privacy constructs. In fact, a
simple google search is all that is really needed to find step by step instructions to accessing
Facebook profiles designated as private. More subtle dangers also exist, however, such as the
danger that individuals using the site as an outlet are often made hesitant to express their
opinions or seek help with their personal issues by the manner in which their statements are tied

Kyle Cornman
November 2, 2015
ENGL 137H
Professor Fonash
intrinsically and permanently with their identity. Users on these sites are generally compelled by
the construct to regurgitate popular and politically correct statements, rather than controversial or
dissenting outlooks.
Pooles anonymous platform also has its own obvious issues, however. The anonymity
that he supports is essentially an anarchical platform where users are liberated to share whatever
they wish with one another, restricted only nominally by federal laws. This means that sites built
on this platform are havens for those wishing to espouse bigoted, violent, or just outright profane
viewpoints. It has been argued that by allowing users an unfiltered right to say whatever is on
their mind at any point in time, such a platform enables verbal attacks and cyberbullying. Poole
addresses this critique in his TED talk, by stating, Saying whatever you like, I think, is
powerful. Doing whatever you like, I think, is now crossing a line (Poole). However, many
contend that hateful speech is often dangerous enough. The additional step to action need not be
taken. Additionally, there is very little restricting users on these sites from taking action. Often,
the amount of physical effect that one can impart on anothers life via the internet is marginal.
However, with a cohesive enough raid (referring to a large body of online users cooperating to
target one or more individuals), an individuals life can be quite noticeably impacted. Often
taking the form of slews of phone calls and emails, and armies of prank pizza orders, these raids
can easily turn to harassment.
The argument that the namesake.com infographic embodies faded from public discourse,
as the overwhelming answer from internet users to the question it posed was seen to be that the
two platforms are not mutually exclusive; both can have a place on a network of global
proportions, like the World Wide Web. It is notable, however, that there is a definite dominance

Kyle Cornman
November 2, 2015
ENGL 137H
Professor Fonash
of one platform over the other in the modern day. Following the popular explosion of Facebook,
a number of sites following Zuckerbergs transparent construct rose to popular prominence.
Following directly behind Facebook in popularity, sites like Twitter and LinkedIn also promote
the attribution of content sharing with an identity, embodied by an account. These accounts tend
to require a connection to some contact information, be it email or phone number, which only
further pushes the user to connect their physical identity to their online activity.
This dominance of the transparent platform over the World Wide Web is a relatively new
construct, however. Until the rise of Facebook to prominence less than a decade ago, the
attribution of a detailed profile to a user was unusual, if not unheard of-though there were,
however, earlier examples of sites with such profiles before Facebook, such as Myspace,
founded in 2002. The norm for the first decade or so after the inception of the World Wide Web
was forum or messaging based sites that required at the most a title or handle. It was generally
understood that no identity presented on the internet could be completely trusted to match up
with a physical individual. This, however, was just one element that made up the anarchical
environment that many came to love: the early web. Dominance of such a format, however, was
doomed to fade.
In the mid-2000s, an innovation in technology prompted a shift in the importance of the
web in the average individuals life. This innovation was, of course, the first smart phone,
Apples iPhone. The ability to access the web on the go that this little invention offered, when it
was first released in 2007, allowed users to integrate social networking online into their mobile
lives. By 2015, 874 million of Facebooks 1.44 billion users are connected via a mobile platform
(generally either a smartphone or a tablet) (Statistic Brain). This huge leap in integrating the

Kyle Cornman
November 2, 2015
ENGL 137H
Professor Fonash
online identity with the physical one greatly increased the appeal of sites like Facebook. As
smartphones advanced rapidly in the coming years, so too did the prominence of social
networking sites following the lead of Facebook. Before long, it became the norm to connect the
online world with the physical in as many ways as possible. Sites like Facebook began to attempt
at a more efficient, single hub of communication, where a phone can act as a users doorway
between the physical and the cyber. Cell phone numbers became tied to email addresses, which
were tied to social media profiles, which were tied to one another, which were then tied to visited
sites and web preferences. Such an intricate web of personal information now exists for hundreds
of millions of users that currently frequent the web, and it is in this very web that they come to
be personified online. This web is their identity, permanently on display to the world.
As the modern web becomes more and more dominated by profile driven social media,
the old guard of the internet is falling progressively to the wayside, with many once popular sites
even being shut down. The anonymous camp now exists popularly in only a few anonymous
messaging sites, such as Omegle and Yikyak and Pooles infamous image board, 4chan. Even
these sites are now regarded most commonly with skepticism, many identifying them entirely
based on the often profane and occasionally hateful content that has come to be associated with
them. As such, most frequenters of the World Wide Web have become unfamiliar with structure
that once dominated it.
But is this okay? Are these anonymous sites archaic and just asking for trouble by
allowing their users such freedom to say whatever they want without constraint? For that it is
important to return to the debates of 2010. Without such unfettered content sharing sites, would
the internet lack an environment where content comes before creator. Is it possible argue points,

Kyle Cornman
November 2, 2015
ENGL 137H
Professor Fonash
however controversial, on a transparent platform site? Furthermore, is such freedom to argue
without attribution to a users identity important in furthering ones ability to properly form an
opinion on a matter? It is seemingly apparent that, like transparent platform sites, anonymous
platform sites serve an important role on the web. Despite this, with things moving in the
direction that they currently are, it is quite possible that the last bastions of this site type will
come to disappear or adapt to be more like the transparent platform sites in the years to come.
This distrust of anonymous browsers extends beyond any single online community.
Though the exploits of now infamous groups like Anonymous stand in the forefront of the issue,
the connotation extends further, even to apparatuses employed for the use of anonymous
browsing. For example, it has been a half decade now since the introduction of anonymous
browsing software, Tor, to the market. Though this software was originally praised for its ability
to shield informants, whistle blowers, and even individuals worried of cyber-stalking from
retaliation by the other involved party, it came to be associated instead with a far more dubious
entity: the dark web. Because the software enables users to easily access this unchecked region
of the World Wide Web, it has itself become forevermore linked to its wrongdoings. This has
earned even this once praised piece of software a notable level of distrust from the community at
large.
It is here where the shift in paradigm has occurred. The perception of those who populate
the web has changed. Online anonymity is becoming less and less accessible. At the same time,
those who frequent the web are becoming less and less accustomed to it. The rise of Facebook as
the social networking hegemon has ushered in an era in which most people spend their time on
the web browsing as an extension of themselves, carrying their identity online with them. As

Kyle Cornman
November 2, 2015
ENGL 137H
Professor Fonash
anonymity becomes progressively less familiar to them, they begin to distrust it. It is for this
reason that we observe those few sites, apps, and pieces of software that still cater to online
privacy and anonymity being associated almost purely with the negative repercussions of their
use. It is for this reason that sites like 4chan.org are recognized more for their association with
instances of cyber bullying and harassment, than cases in which they have brought criminals to
justice through collective participation. It is for this reason that apps like Yik Yak and sites like
Omegle are written off for as nests of profanity and hate, rather than appreciated for the manner
in which they allow discourse between members of, in the case of the former, regional
communities, and, in the case of the latter, global communities. It is for this reason that software
like Tor is known more commonly for its ability to facilitate drug deals than for its ability to
protect whistleblowers with pertinent messages.
Now people are beginning to worry about things like online privacy. Some are starting to
wish to take a step back from hardline internet transparency. Meanwhile, these last bastions of
online anonymity are being slowly ridiculed out of existence. How can we take this step back, as
single identity focused social media continues to thunder forward? The answer is clear; you
cannot effect change in the structure of the web until you can change the perceptions of the
people. It is essential that this new generation that is growing up online, that is growing up on
Facebook, become familiar once again with the potentials of anonymity. It is essential that the
fears associated with its freedoms are not able to overshadow the potential it provides. We have
to demystify the anonymous web, and not write it off as profane muck and mire, when it is
clearly more than that. Remember, very little gold was ever found sitting out in the open; if it is
gold that one seeks, they must be willing to sift through dirt and grime.

Kyle Cornman
November 2, 2015
ENGL 137H
Professor Fonash
Work Cited
Kirkpatrick, David. The Facebook Effect: The inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting
the World. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print.
Namesake.com. Transparency vs. Anonymity. Digital image. Namesake.com. N.p., n.d. Web.
Poole C. (2010, February). Christopher "moot" Poole: The case for anonymity online
"Statistic Brain." Statistic Brain. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.statisticbrain.com/facebook-statistics/>.