Anonymity in Online Interactions

Jake Kroeker, Jeremiah McGrath, Christopher McMichael

CST462S

Brian Robertson

Fall 2023
 1

Introduction

When was the last time you had absolutely no contact with the greater world?

Even though this concept — the idea that it might be impossible for someone to contact

you, even in an emergency — is alien in the modern age, it was common for most of

human history. This isolation became nearly extinct with the advent of the Internet, and

was expanded by the introduction of the smartphone. Suddenly, nearly everyone in the

world had a permanent connection to the Internet – a means to communicate with

individuals across the globe. While this new connectivity revolutionized the world, it also

subtly changed the nature of human interaction.

The Internet fundamentally altered how conversations take place. Due to the

virtual nature of the Internet, it became common for those participating in a conversation

to not know the identities of those they were conversing with. The use of “avatars”

became widespread; where, instead of identifying yourself using your real name,

individuals would identify themselves via an alias. In this way, a previously uncommon

aspect of human interaction was made common – anonymity. The consequences of this

anonymity are an extremely important aspect to understand in relation to current social

and cultural norms. A major portion of modern life involves interactions on the Internet,

and these interactions significantly deviate from what was commonplace in humanity’s

past. To this end, we will explore the possible effects anonymity has on the honesty,

truthfulness, and privacy of Internet interactions, and how these effects might benefit or

detract from modern ideals and movements.

Literature Review
 2

Based on our own experiences of the impact of anonymity online, we have

noticed a trend, where ideas that are contentious in normal speech might be expressed

more openly when the speaker is anonymous. This veil over one’s identity creates two,

almost opposing, effects. On one hand, the ability to speak anonymously allows for

speech that might be considered against state or cultural ideals to be expressed without

fear of repercussion, but on the other, it could perpetuate harmful cultural stereotypes of

marginalized individuals, spread dangerous misinformation, and even contribute to

online harassment and discrimination (Kilvington, 2020).

It is important to note that governments around the world have identified the

sensitive nature of information online. This information generally includes

government-issued identifiers, health data, purchase activity, and other confidential

data. Fines are issued to those found violating these privacy protections – further

showing the importance placed on this information. In particular, many governments

hold the privacy of minors to a higher standard. California’s Proposition 24, for example,

explicitly defines penalties against misusing the data of underage individuals

(“Proposition 24,” 2020). Additionally, some United States Senators have highlighted the

dangers of social media usage for children as a whole (Murphy, 2023). In this way,

government policy often aligns with the idea that online interactions should be protected

in some way and that individuals should not be mandated to give up their private

information in order to use an online service.

Another interesting consequence of the anonymity afforded by the Internet is the

abundance of questionable “authorities” on social platforms. It is a well-known fact that

humans have a strong bias towards accepting information that comes from a perceived
 3

source of authority. Recently, some social media websites have shown a willingness to

weaken their mechanisms that combat misinformation. For example, X (formally known

as Twitter), replaced its “blue checkmark” system, where X manually verified high-profile

users, with a paid alternative. The verification status of users is a major component of

X’s algorithm; and thus, anonymous individuals can pay a small fee to feign authority

and receive undue influence (Al-Rakhami & Al-Amri, 2020).

A common theme behind all of these sources is their concern with authority and

anonymity. Some sources assert that anonymity is an important factor in safely using

the Internet. While this is certainly a valid perspective, other sources rely heavily on

their ability to authenticate users – so that they may be trusted. The major contention

behind these points of view appears to be the conflict between anonymity and authority.

Balancing these is paramount to producing inviting online environments, although too

much focus on anonymity could jeopardize the trust that comes from verification and

authority, and too much focus on authority could harm an individual's personal privacy.

Research Question

Considering the complex issue of authentication in online interactions versus the

benefit of online anonymity – the formation of universal safe spaces in online

communities can be difficult. On one hand, the lack of authentication can cause

individuals to be unsure if the person they’re interacting with can be trusted. However,

the implementation of authentication systems could lead to the collection of personal

data — data that could compromise someone's ability to use online spaces to express

ideas and interact with others free from discrimination and judgment. This complex

situation raises the question: How could the overall user experience of online platforms
 4

change if companies that develop and maintain these platforms were mandated to

implement authentication practices for all users?

Research Design

In order to collect information relating to user experience with anonymity vs

authentication, and regarding the impact of a potential authentication mandate, we will

utilize a survey-based methodology where each interviewee will be sent a Google Form

consisting of our questions. Our pool of target research participants doesn’t have a

specific set of qualities in mind, rather we wish to pursue a broad selection of viewpoints

in order to consider as many perspectives as possible. Targeting any one specific group

may alienate critical experiences that highlight positive or negative aspects of our

research topic. We plan to contact individuals that we know – those who we believe

could provide insightful feedback from a variety of backgrounds. We aim to give our

interviewees access to our survey prior to the beginning of week 5 so they will have until

the end of week 5 to respond.

Our survey will contain the following questions:

● Question 1: Describe an experience where you or someone you know used an

anonymous online persona separate from their In-Real-Life identity, and what the

reason behind it was?

● Question 2: Is online anonymity important to you? Why or why not?

● Question 3: Relating to your experience with social media, how much control do

you prefer to have over who can view your profile and/or contact you?

● Question 4: In your opinion, why do others utilize anonymity in online

interactions?
 5

● Question 5: What potential reactions could you foresee social media users

having if all users had to be authenticated? What if an already-existing

authentication mechanism was removed?

● Question 6: How do you think online anonymity influences interactions on the

internet?

Service Organizations

Between the three authors, one author is working with the service site Defend,

while the remaining authors are working to develop educational STEM lessons for

children through Starbase Edwards.

Defend (Site 1) – Chris

Chris is volunteering with Defend – a volunteer-run, non-profit organization based

out of Canada. Originally, Defend began with advocating for age and ID verification on

all social media platforms but over time, this goal evolved into not only continuing their

advocacy for improving the safety of vulnerable people on all social media platforms but

also developing their own platform from the ground up with this mission in mind. With

this newly established goal, Defend began development on 65Square, their version of a

social media platform. This platform leans heavily on verification and accountability to

produce an environment that facilitates a universal sense of trust and security. Their

ideal system prevents individuals from masking their identity, contacting others who do

not wish to be contacted, and reducing the possibility of harmful interactions but at the

cost of no anonymity. Chris’s service project with Defend is participation on the

database team. From this site, a lead developer of the 65Square database team will be
 6

contacted to provide a developer perspective. This participant was chosen because

they have experience developing and maintaining a social media platform.

STARBASE Edwards (Site 2) – Jake and Jeremiah

Jake and Jeremiah are volunteering at STARBASE Edwards – a STEM program

based out of Edwards Air Force Base, California, for students of surrounding

communities. The STARBASE program was founded by the DoD in 1991 to encourage

STEM education on and around various U.S. military bases. STARBASE Edwards aims

to encourage STEM education by running a 5-day program where students attend

lessons, hear from experts in the field, and engage with hands-on activities. Instruction

provided throughout the program is based upon Next Generation Science Standards

(NGSS), Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Career and Technical Education

Standards, and the Computer Science Standards for California Schools. In order to

collect responses from those within the target audience, Jake and Jeremiah will

interview individuals outside of STARBASE Edwards. Jake will be interviewing a college

student who recently graduated high school, and Jeremiah will be contacting a young

adult who uses social media on a daily basis. These participants were chosen because

we believe they represent a range of unique perspectives relating to social media and

its users.

Conduct Research

All three authors conducted one interview with participants who held differing

perspectives on this issue. Chris chose to interview a member of his service site:

Defend. This interviewee is Jason, who is a longtime managerial member of Defend and

has helped work on their social media applications and their external work relating to
 7

our research topic of anonymity and authorization in the online world (see Appendix A).

Jake interviewed outside of his service site. To better understand the perspectives of

younger generations, Jake interviewed James, a college student who recently

graduated high school (see Appendix B). Jeremiah also interviewed outside of his

service site. He chose to interview Nickolas, a young adult enrolled in university who

uses social media extensively (see Appendix C).

Findings

Summary

Chris’ interviewee (personal communication, November 27, 2023) seemed to

believe that anonymity in online interactions could be used to protect or to cause harm,

while authorization systems are a positive addition. He believes that anonymity in direct

interactions could lead to negative experiences, although he also wishes to keep his

personal information secure until he can verify the identity of those he wishes to interact

with. This belief seems to express an overall preference for systems being in a place

that could help users verify the identity of others with the intent to protect themselves

from possible bad actors.

Jake’s interviewee (personal communication, November 24, 2023) viewed

anonymity through the lens of online interaction. They mainly use online platforms to

meet and interact with friends online. To them, anonymity provides a way to meet

people safely, without the dangers of giving away your real identity. Thus, the

interviewee regards anonymity as an important tool in securing one’s privacy online.

Overall, the interviewee views anonymity as a positive force – especially relating to how

it allows interactions to be conducted safely on the Internet. However, they also

 8

acknowledge the detrimental effects anonymity can have, such as facilitating negative

behaviors by the way of keeping identities hidden.

Jeremiah’s interviewee (personal communication, November 26, 2023) generally

focused on the positive impacts of online anonymity. They pointed out that individuals

can create brands with virtual identities, to generate revenue through the creation of

digital content. They also conceded that anonymity could lead some to act maliciously

online considering their lack of consequences. This interviewee believes that, in total,

online anonymity is a net positive – although it can lead to individuals acting in harmful

ways while taking on an online persona to avoid negative consequences.

Common Themes

There is an overall consensus among the interviewees on the possible harm that

anonymity could facilitate, with one interviewee remarking that “online anonymity gives

people the freedom to be bad actors” (see Appendix A). Jeremiah’s interviewee

believes this could lead to an increase in fake profiles, and a rise in the spread of

disinformation (see Appendix C). That being said, Jake and Jeremiah’s interviewees

generally held a positive opinion on the possible effects of anonymity. For example,

Jake’s interviewee viewed anonymity as a way “to meet new friends on the internet”

(see Appendix B) without the risk of revealing one’s personal information until a closer

relationship is established. When utilized in this way, anonymity shields users from bad

actors, which aligns with interviewee A’s preference to verify the identity of users before

choosing to interact with them. This aspect of anonymity – being able to control how

much personal information is made public online – is a common value of our

interviewees. As one interviewee stated, they prefer to have a high degree of control
 9

over which parts of their personal information are accessible for others to view, because

they “don’t want anyone random to know who [they are] or have access to [their] contact

information” (see Appendix B).

Synthesis

Although our interviewees expressed a variety of perspectives on the values of

online anonymity, a consensus was gathered regarding the importance of safeguarding

personal information from those who may misuse it. Our interviewees also agreed that a

lack of authentication could result in an environment that lacks sufficient measures to

counteract negative behaviors. Regarding our research question, it appears users

would have mixed opinions on a mandatory layer of authentication – as some users

prefer anonymity, especially for privacy reasons, while others lean towards the benefits

of authentication, such as an increased trust in user identities.

Conclusions

In our research we attempted to interview individuals that we anticipated would

have a wide range of perspectives on the topic of anonymity. While our research

provides valuable insights into the topic, the small group of participants, by its nature,

does not represent a sample size of sufficient breadth to draw conclusions over a larger

population. We believe that several conclusions can be drawn by our data, but that

more research is needed to examine the topic in greater contexts. In particular, it might

be valuable for future research to quantify to what extent an authentication mandate

might impact discussion that relies on anonymity in various contexts; a prudent example

being speech that might be considered sensitive, or against mainstream ideals or

beliefs.
 10

From our findings, we can conclude that an authentication mandate could foster

an environment that combats negative behaviors – especially from those with ill intent.

There was agreement amongst our interviewees that verification could significantly

diminish, or even eliminate, a substantial portion of the risks and harms associated with

online activities. This being said, they also placed great importance on their ability to

control which facets of their personal data are shared publicly, often in the pursuit of

safeguarding it from nefarious individuals. Every interviewee expressed a preference to

maintain full control over the extent to which their personal content is available to the

public. There is also a strong argument to be made that authentication mechanisms

inherently weaken privacy, and the associated freedoms therein, that are associated

with anonymity. It can be argued that, without anonymity, the digital divide between

various groups could widen – this would be caused by a large quantity of users being

unable to join and contribute to certain online spaces, for fear of ostracization or

prejudice. To this end, we believe that an approach that incorporates values relevant to

all stakeholders should be considered. We found that our participants showed distinct

preferences towards each scenario – both anonymity and authentication – in different

contexts; therefore, it is logical to conclude that either extreme constitutes an overreach

of policy. Regarding the research question, and its proposed mandate of authentication,

our research suggests that an ideal solution should represent a compromise; that both

anonymity and authentication are important in different contexts, and that a balance of

each is crucial to online platforms.

Recommendations
 11

Considering our survey findings, we were faced with opinions that favored

anonymity in certain situations, but that, in other circumstances, favored authentication.

With this in mind, our recommendation prioritizes users, and how they wish to proceed

with their accounts in these online spaces.

We recommend that authentication mechanisms should allow users the capability

to link their identity to a single account, but that this choice is ultimately left to the user’s

discretion. With this system, users would be able to identify authenticated individuals by

an account-specific label or tag – informing them that a review process has verified that

individual’s identity, and that they can trust this person is who they claim to be. Such a

system can authenticate a user’s identity through documentation, such as a government

issued ID, or other localized forms of trusted verification. Apps such as Venmo currently

implement a similar system for certain features in their app. This recommendation can

also be expanded upon depending on a company’s vision for their online space. For

example, a potential implementation might include hiding a user’s personal information,

and instead opting to only display a chosen alias to unauthenticated users, until either

both users are authenticated, or they both choose to connect.

Naturally, many social media companies determine policy according to

profitability projections, and so government intervention may be required for

authentication mechanisms to be ultimately implemented. As mentioned, the degree of

verification implemented by any particular social media platform may be left to the

individual platform’s interpretation – however, the base idea of verifying a user’s identity

using trusted methods should be the minimum mandated by government policies. Fully
 12

verifying oneself in online spaces does not need to be mandatory for all users; as long

as it is a provided option, users can then choose to utilize it at their own discretion.
 13

References

Al-Rakhami, M. S., & Al-Amri, A. M. (2020). Lies kill, facts save: Detecting covid-19

misinformation in Twitter. IEEE Access, 8, 155961–155970.

https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3019600

Kilvington, D. (2020). The virtual stages of hate: Using Goffman’s work to conceptualize

the motivations for online hate. Media, Culture & Society, 43(2), 256–272.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720972318

Murphy, Cotton, Schatz, Britt Op-Ed in the Washington Post: Why We Need the

Protecting Kids on Social Media Act. (2023, May 11). Chris Murphy. Retrieved

November 13, 2023, from

https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-cotton-schatz-

britt-op-ed-in-the-washington-post-why-we-need-the-protecting-kids-on-social-me

dia-act

Proposition 24. Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2020, November 3). Retrieved November

13, 2023, from

https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=24&year=2020
 14

Appendix A

● Describe an experience where you or someone you know used an anonymous

online persona separate from their In-Real-Life identity, and what the reason

behind it was?

○ Was part of a documentary crew where we saw many people pretend to be

younger or use fake personas to gain access to kids

● Is online anonymity important to you? Why or why not?

○ Yes to a degree. There’s sometimes when integrity and trust matter

therefore the genuineness of being verified helps

● Relating to your experience with social media, how much control do you prefer to

have over who can view your profile and/or contact you.

○ Don’t really use social media but lots of control is preferred

● In your opinion, why do others utilize anonymity in online interactions?

○ To hide their activity, to do things that are generally looked down upon by

society or to harm others.

● What potential reactions could you foresee social media users having if all users

had to be authenticated? What if an already-existing authentication mechanism

was removed?

○ There’s plenty much no authentication online. Very little services require

authentication or verification. If being forced, people will cry about their

privacy or government interference. Most people don’t realize that a

majority of risk of harms online would be greatly reduced or abated from

verification. Most online comes from a lack of online accountability

 15

● How do you think online anonymity influences interactions on the internet?

○ Online anonymity gives people the freedom to be bad actors and hide their

poor choices from most of society.

Appendix B

● Describe an experience where you or someone you know used an anonymous

online persona separate from their In-Real-Life identity, and what the reason

behind it was?

○ One of my friends on Discord decided to use a different name because, we

didn't actually know each other that well. We thought we just met online

after doing some games, but it turned out he was a friend from school. I

believe he used his online persona instead of their In-Real-Life identity just

because not everyone will give out their real name to someone if they don't

really know who they are.

● Is online anonymity important to you? Why or why not?

○ I believe online anonymity is important because it is a way to meet new

friends on the internet. It makes sense that one would not want to

immediately share personal information so I believe this is important as a

way to reach out and contact others. Eventually, you may form a

connection and be more confident to share out personal information and

even contact information.

● Relating to your experience with social media, how much control do you prefer to

have over who can view your profile and/or contact you.
 16

○ I prefer to know who I'm speaking to. I like to have control over who can

view my profile because I don't want anyone random to know who I am or

have access to my contact information.

● In your opinion, why do others utilize anonymity in online interactions?

○ I believe others utilize anonymity in online interactions because there are

many people who play games online with others that they don't know.

Considering that they don't know who they are, it makes sense that they

won't share information which leads to more online anonymity.

● What potential reactions could you foresee social media users having if all users

had to be authenticated? What if an already-existing authentication mechanism

was removed?

○ If all users had to be authenticated, I believe that it would cause people to

be less vocal or derogatory, as well as rude and vulgar with what they said.

It could have benefits, but if an already-existing authentication mechanism

was removed, I think it would cause others to do whatever they wanted

without some, likely no negative repercussions.

● How do you think online anonymity influences interactions on the internet?

○ I think some influenced interactions on the internet due to online

anonymity is that people can be rude and vulgar because they never face

repercussions or consequences because nobody knows who they truly

are.

Appendix C
 17

● Describe an experience where you or someone you know used an anonymous

online persona separate from their In-Real-Life identity, and what the reason

behind it was?

○ Personally, I find that people use an anonymous identity to grow a brand

while still maintaining their privacy.

● Is online anonymity important to you? Why or why not?

○ Yes. It allows you to separate your personal life from what you enjoy and

keeps your privacy safe.

● Relating to your experience with social media, how much control do you prefer to

have over who can view your profile and/or contact you.

○ I prefer to have full control, but I personally don't care too much about my

own privacy because I don't have much to hide.

● In your opinion, why do others utilize anonymity in online interactions?

○ People sometimes speak differently online and troll because it allows a

sense of freedom with little consequences, while other people just want

their personal stuff to stay private unless they choose to share it.

● What potential reactions could you foresee social media users having if all users

had to be authenticated? What if an already-existing authentication mechanism

was removed?

○ Users would be frustrated due to the fact they would have their right to

privacy infringed on. That being said, I think we would see an increase of

bots and fake profiles if an already-existing mechanism was removed.

 18

● How do you think online anonymity influences interactions on the internet?

○ Overall I think it's a positive, but a lot of people like to say negative things

over the internet that they wouldn't say in real life.