Being in cyberspace allows the user to be anyone they want to be. Basically, the Internet allows you to put on as many fronts whenever you like and for as long as you like. The Internet creates a setting for anonymity to happen and second, there is no accountability through this type of communication. Through our daily interactions, we tend to act in different ways around different people. Our face to face interactions involve us adjusting our personalities to fit in with the given situation. We use different fronts when we act like students, friends, siblings, sons, or daughters. So, when communicating on the Internet, our interaction is merely an extension of what we do in our everyday life.
What does our face mean to others anyway? Only to friends, family, some government agencies, and creditors, does our face mean something. To a lot of people, we are just another anonymous being in the crowd. Society has created a situation where anonymity is the norm, mass media and support groups are just two examples of structures which operate through anonymity. (Seltzer) Anonymity on the Internet can be seen as the norm and not a deviation. Anonymous interaction in cyberspace has become a commonplace phenomenon, people can be themselves or create an entirely new persona. The Internet makes anonymity easy so long as there is no physical manipulation involved. It is a way of testing new boundaries, and seeing how far one will go when no one can ever know about it, you can assume roles that perhaps you only imagined. The benefits of social interaction can be achieved, while still maintaining a sense of privacy. Often, people get immersed in their daily roles which stops them from being spontaneous and carefree. Internet addiction allows people to enter worlds which portray the illusions of danger and excitement without really being threatened. People are able to guess and sense the tensions between the real and the make-believe. (Seltzer)
Instead of being judged by others through birthright, and other social and economic categories, interacting on the Internet allows you to choose where and how to belong. It becomes very easy to send mail, messages, and information without anyone knowing who sent it and without having to account for your actions. Typically, these types of anonymous messages can be sent through remailing. Remailing keeps the identity of the original sender private, recipients only know the name of the person who resent the message, not the original source. There are two distinctions made between anonymous communication, there is the traceable anonymous and the untraceable anonymous communication. Traceable anonymity occurs when the remailer gives the recipient no clues as to senders identity, but leaves the information in the hands of a single intermediary. (Froomkin 2) For example, person A would send an unencrypted e-mail to remailer B with instructions to pass it on to person C. Person B would delete person A's identifying return address and send the message to person C. Usually, the message would look like "nobody@remailer.com". If person C decides that they want to know who sent the message, they can ask person B who may have kept person A's address, or if the message violates the law, person C can go to a judge and have the address subpoenaed so long as person B lives within the country. (Froomkin 3)
Untraceable anonymity is more secure as well as complex, it occurs when the author is simply not identifiable at all. This can be achieved through "chain remailing", where messages get rerouted through several remailers. The only way the message could get retraced is if the remailers decided to compromise the sender's identity. On one hand, untraceable anonymity can serve people who are in fear of retaliation, but it also opens the door for electronic hate mail, hate speech, stalking, libel, and disclosure of trade secrets. It also forces the government to deal with freedom of speech in ways that were never anticipated. Citizens will be able to criticize government and have access to other world views without fear of retribution. (Froomkin 4)
Similar to anonymity, psuedonymity involves the sender changing their name as opposed to not sending one at all. And, just like anonymity, pseudonymity is both untraceable and traceable. With untraceable pseudonymity the sender will change their real name to something else. If the sender becomes worried that someone may try to masquerade under their psuedonym, the sender can sign their name with a digital signature created specifically for the psuedonym. This will help detect any forged signatures and create a digital persona or a "nym". (Froomkin 5) Traceable psuedonymity is communication with a "nom de plume" attached which can be traced back to the author. So, the messages will be sent to the remailer or to the original sender using the psuedonym. But, why would people want to communicate in such a manner?
In Goffman's analysis, he sees us performing in different types of settings. Usually, the setting stays constant during our performance and it is only rarely that the setting follows us. Basically, we fit into the setting. (Goffman 22) When looking at the interaction in cyberspace, we see that the setting forces the user to transform themselves, the setting fits the user. The Internet offers different scenarios and creates a setting that is condusive to anonymity and psuedonymity, many find it easy and sometimes necessary to change their persona, or to change their front. Being anonymous in cyberspace is helpful to those who live in countries where freedom of speech and press may not be so widely upheld. It creates an open forum to communicate and inform others without danger to themselves. Also, anonymity creates a situation where there is no gender, race, or prejudice, it transcends these boundaries and everyone can be seen as equal. (Seltzer) The cyberspace environment is constantly changing, the setting is never constant, thus it makes it easier for people to remain "hidden". Anonymous interaction maintains privacy, but not at the expense of social isolation. What other medium will allow you to enter new worlds and meet new people without having to follow rules of specific conduct? It becomes possible to exit a setting or change a setting that you do not like where in face to face communication, this is not easy. But, what are the consequences for operating this way in cyberspace?
There are many benefits to anonymous interaction on the Internet, but do these benefits outweigh the social reality? In our lives, we do present various fronts, but when we do, we are accountable for our actions. This is a disadvantage to anonymity, because there is no face to face communication or interaction. You no longer have to be accountable for what you say or do. Often, Internet users evade or hinder accountability which allows them to express feelings without taking into perspective how someone else may feel. In the real world of face to face communication, such outbursts of inappropriate behaviour would bring about retaliation. (Cascio & Brin 11). Also, with anonymity, the Internet's communal nature is broken. The once open forum of open communication and debate is vastly transferred when you are bombarded with anonymous rhetoric. Since you are able to put on as many fronts without being held accountable, a high level of uncertainty is created among users. Therefore, positive personal relationships on the Internet are rare and infrequent. It takes longer to move towards shared points of views and it becomes easier to engage in more verbal aggression.
The use of deception is not uncommon either, pretending to be someone you are not is misleading to the person you are communicating with. There have been several instances where deception has caused danger and heartache for many. In the article "Boys Just Wanna Have Fun?", John Suler cites a case where a boy named Brad met a girl named "Natalie" on a Moo. He was a senior at an eastern university and she was a junior on the west coast. Over time, Brad began to have feelings of love towards "Natalie" and when he finally suggested a telephone conversation, the truth came out that "Natalie" was really a fifty year old man. (Suler 1) This is the misfortune of the Internet, it allows people to experiment with their identity, and instantly change their gender with a few strokes of the keyboard. Often, these cases of gender switching involve more men taking on the identity of women which leads to the question, why are men so interested in experimenting with a woman's identity? Some theories suggest that cultural stereotypes make it difficult for men to explore their feminine characteristics without being labelled by society. Others suggest that it helps bring more attention to themselves when competing with the numerous users out there. It also acts as an aide in understanding male and female relationships or possibly a way to act upon homosexual feelings. (Suler 1) One way to help detect "gender switching" is to ask questions that presumably men may not know the answers to. An example would be to ask what the difference is between junior and misses sizes.
Other possible dangers of anonymity include insider trading, the sale of corporate and personal secrets, and blackmail. Due to the various ways to overcome identification in cyberspace, it makes it much more difficult to detect which in turn could create a situation where harmful activity could become frequent. Another concern being raised is the intrusion of anonymous, untraceable e-cash which will increase the range of interpersonal transactions that can occur anonymously. On line fraud is likely where a digital personality can attest to the "hundreds who have been satisfied" with their service who also turn out to be digital personalities themselves. (Froomkin 6)
Cyberspace interaction is vastly different from the type of interaction Goffman spoke of, it creates a setting where anonymity and psuedonymity are typically the norm. Many people are able to put on as many fronts as they like because quite simply, the Internet makes it easy to do so. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to balance the benefits from the consequences which means that all users out there must beware because things may not be as they seem.