Tags
anonymity, censorship, Facebook, privacy, social media, Twitter
That India is a strange place should be no surprise to India watchers; politicians, historians, political scientists, linguists, sociologists, and anthropologists have all seen their theories severely tested by the Indian story. This year, a new addition was made to the list of strange things about India, if anyone hasn’t yet given up on keeping such a list. It is perhaps the only country in which the fourth estate, or at least a large part of it, supports censorship in one form or another.
The first instance of this was seen this year in August when riots suddenly erupted across India, ostensibly over the treatment of Rohingyas in Burma (?!) and the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh in Assam. The Government of India moved quickly yet haphazardly to restrict the number of text messages per day and blocked websites, FaceBook accounts, and twitter handles. The second instance, though a minor one, occurred today on twitter. Priya Ramani’s response to a tweet by Rajdeep Sardesai, both members of India’s infamous fourth estate, set off a mixed bag of reactions, from caricature and mockery to serious discussions about the positive and negative aspects of anonymity on the internet. It is the latter that concerns me here.
It is perhaps a human reflex to find anonymity suspicious. Professional researchers are trained to view anonymity with much scepticism. In many ways, it is what irks many people about the burkha. The internet, specifically social media, allows entirely anonymous interaction, lowering social inhibitions and permitting irresponsible behaviour such as aggression, abusive language, and other uncivilised traits. Worse, it is easier to spread false rumours and fan the flames of sectarian violence. In such a capacity, some argue, it can be destabilising to democracy.
This is absolute nonsense. The same arguments about security and stability are being repeated, and it is annoying to have to repeat the answers every time; objecting to anonymity is merely a new twist. If you are lucky, you may get another twist – Indian democracy is nascent and fragile, and any encouragement of fissiparous tendencies could lead to a much wider conflagration. If only saying the same thing in different ways was considered a new argument…
First off, let us get this very clear at the outset – there is no such thing as anonymity on the internet, except in the minds of amateurs. Any website one visits can, if it wishes, know a lot more about the visitor than may be desired. Screen resolution, browser, operating system, IP address, etc. are all ready for the capturing. Perhaps beyond the skill set of the average computer user, it is nonetheless possible to identify the faces behind the masks. There is no governmental need to mandate away anonymity.
The reason why many people prefer to be anonymous online (at much as possible) should have been made quite clear last week when a man was arrested in Tamil Nadu for questioning the sudden increase in wealth of Karthi Chidambaram, the son of India’s finance minister, in a tweet. That he was later released on bail is of little comfort – such an event can have adverse social effects among the neighbours and even at work. Adding insult to the injury, the man cannot even move the court on grounds of wrongful arrest – not only do the powerful know how to circumvent the law as in many countries, the Indian courts are hopelessly backlogged and justice can even take years.
There is, of course, a simpler reason for anonymity – it is not necessary to divulge one’s identity on the internet. Information is given only when something is expected in return – while it may be necessary to give the passport clerk one’s address, date of birth, and other details if one wants a travel document, it is not necessary to do the same at a candy store, where the owner need only be concerned with his/her customer’s cash. Controlled substances, such as certain chemicals, may require more information and some substances may be entirely banned. Nonetheless, there is a qualitative difference between twitter and FaceBook on the one hand, and lead azide and pentaerythrite tetranitrate on the other. Internet platforms have several mechanisms by which users can be restrained, blocked, and even have their accounts deleted if they are found to be in violation of the community’s rules.
It is also interesting to note that not all anonymous handles are genuinely functioning incognito; many are known to their friends. Anonymity is important not from each other but from authority since, in India, it knows only to sustain itself through the abuse of power. Anonymous users are also, no doubt, aware that they have less credibility due to their anonymous status; hence, to be taken seriously, they must build a history of credible commentary on their blogs, FaceBook profiles, or of tweets. In addition, the number of followers also lends to credibility. Thus, a “JohnDoe123” with 23,000 followers and 57,000 tweets may be less questionable than a “JaneDoe987” with 17 followers and 1,203 tweets. Similarly, a “DavidIsser” may appear a more reliable source of information than a “XenMaster” and if there is any doubt, it is nothing a quick scan of their timelines cannot clear. Thus, it is not impossible to evaluate the calibre of an anonymous user.
Finally, it needs to be reiterated that the government has the powers to pursue the user of an anonymous account if he or she has violated any law. Anonymity is no bar in this regard. The red herring of security and stability of government is just another ploy for the state to convert society into a giant panopticon. In a functioning democracy, this is a worry; in a dysfunctional, dynastic oligarchy like India, it is even more important that citizens defend their privacy with vigour.
Personally, I am deeply suspicious of anonymity, but personal dislike is not strong enough a reason to mandate disclosure. If dislikes were the yardstick, I’d also do away with poverty, socialism, war, and bigots. Sadly, it is not so. For all the “principled” opposition to anonymity, let it be noted – there is no such principle.
Chaturanga 
“Evey: Who are you?
V. : Who? Who is but the form following the function of what and what I am is a man in a mask.
Evey: Well I can see that.
V. : Of course you can, I’m not questioning your powers of observation, I’m merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.
Evey: Oh, right.
V. : But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me then, in lieu of the more commonplace soubriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona. Voila! In view humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the “vox populi” now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V.
Evey: Are you like a crazy person?
V. : I’m quite sure they will say so.”
― Alan Moore, V for Vendetta
If I were to simply use twitter as an example, the rise of the Internet Hindu is largely due to anonymity. Yes, there are IE’s out there that are fairly open about their political beliefs. But, a face or their name out there restricts their arsenal so to speak.
The IE that I have in mind, which you see out there remains anonymous for it allows him to abuse/troll his victims. It’s hard to be taken seriously or even engage into a discussion with someone who chooses to remain anonymous, their credibility takes a hit.
Agreed. Not having a name or a face does allow IEs greater freedom to be uncivil. However, that is not reason enough to mandate identity disclosure. There are other mechanisms to deal with abuse, such as blocking or reporting. Mandating identity disclosure is too severe a step, particularly in a country like India which does not have an effective judicial redress option available.
Reporting the concerned watchdog is something most people do.
Reporting does not lead to anything, as the IE or any abusive troll intention/practice has always been to create another Identity and continue the abuse.
I would not think most of the people who have such strong opinions about the welfare and it’s state, would voice their concerns so openly if they knew their identity was on-line. Does it not give them more incentive when they know they can abuse anybody and get away with it, without any repercussions?
You cannot force discipline on someone, how do you contain this behavior?
In which case, it sounds like anything else – for example, I can drink until I am silly and there is no law against it. My drinking may indirectly affect others. Yet prohibition simply does not work. Similarly, trolling is one of those things one must put up with and use what is available to make a smooth path. As you say, one cannot force discipline on others.
I do not think any troll would be so eager on going after a nobody – new accounts and repeated trolling sounds like something only known people face, and that is part of the terrain. I suspect trolling has a lot to do with anger, so the next question is why people are so angry. It doesn’t justify uncouth behaviour, but may give some idea as to the underlying dynamic here.
No, its not like anything else. You drinking, you smoking, cursing is your business. If your drinking affects people around you. I’d like to believe they’ll let you know. Or keep you in check. There is a civil code. If you are in elevator and somebody is openly cursing on the phone or with someone else, then you do something about, you do remind them an elevator is a public space and your expected to maintain some decorum. They however can choose to refute.
As to trolling, it’s pretty rampant. Irrespective of whether you are or not a public personality. Lets forget IE, if you are a woman and have a opinion you are either a cunt/bitch.
I find it hard to believe that most of them would get away with such comments in real life, without any repercussions. There has to be some payoff.
Anger no anger. I do believe India works well with the concept of public shaming. It might be a decadent practice, but some acts call for appropriate measures.
No one can keep your drinking in check; they can only keep away from you. And I’d love to see who does what in an elevator with someone cursing on the phone. There is a difference between inconvenience and illegal.
Your point on shaming is not the focus of my post. I made it clear that the tweet from Priya Ramani sparked off a couple of debates about anonymity and those interested me more than what Ms. Ramani had to say. If anyone thinks that revealing trolling behaviour would help, then they can go ahead. If they find out who the trolls are, that is. Disclosure of identity cannot be made compulsory to satisfy convenience.
On tattling, it’s like my coming to your home to tell your parents that you drink. Nothing illegal in your drinking or my revealing it to your parents, except a code – no one likes tattlers.
When I say keep you in check, I meant hold you accountable for your cotinued drinking/actions. Someone may choose to drink nevertheless, but after a while the drinker does face the consequences.
As to the elevator incident, if you have a child/young sibling anyone for whom you are responsible for I’d like to think its your duty to protect them as long as you can. But, you do have a choice to question their behavior. It’s like asking someone not to spit on the road, 9/10 it might not make any difference, but hopefully that 1 time someone might make an attempt not to be so obnoxious about their behaviour, and maybe the generation next can pickup on it.Obviously, it depends upon the person as well.
I’m not advocating we should name names. My belief stems that such behaviour is irresponsible, it’s okay to have opinions, Girish Karnad thinks Tagore was a bad playwright, Jethmalani thinks Ram was a bad husband. Now, these could be flammable comments. They can be engineered as irresponsible comments, but once you put your name behind your belief, you are commited to what you say/said. You’ll think twice before you say something stupid.(Or, atleast you should)
Anonymity gives you a lot of freedom to express yourself. I blogged anonymously for couple of years. But, it’s a double edged sword. If you take away accountability for your words, it’s pretty much like giving somebody a license to kill. It does encourage online bullying.
As for the tattler’s code, there is honor among thieves as well. I just don’t believe Trolls/Abusers online deserve such a code.
The relationship between anonymity and credibility has also been covered in my post.
I have less problem with tattling since it involves increased audience of activities in a public forum. I do not like it, but technically, a public forum means less privacy.
As to why anonymity, disconcerting though it may be, is acceptable, I redirect you to my post. All arguments are there and I’d only be repeating them.
I’m not too sure of the law on this, but I read this somewhere. Correct me, if I am wrong or if you know otherwise. In India, can you still be arrested if a hetrosexual couple are caught in the act of kissing, in a public space? I read it was, or the police officer tried to make a quick buck and the couple weren’t aware of the law. Either way, the point being on public ground you behave to the laws which are set by society.Somehow, those laws do not apply online, which creates a disconnect. Eventually, there will be an convergence of the two, as days go by. Countries will impose themselves on companies like google and fb. google opted to shift to HK from china, after it chose to air the youtube video of protests in a major chinese city market, countries/governments will look to protect themselves, Oligarchs or not.
Yes, arguments are well presented; But, the point I have been trying to drive at is. The confusion which it creates for the youth today. There has been such an influx of internet freedom, parent’s in their 30’s(young) find it complex. It creates a purdah system, which is unhealthy. There need not be a set of rules, but certain broad guidelines which go along with the laws present on the ground, the disconnect needs to be marginalised.