UTS Report

IDENTITY CRISIS: ANONYMITY AND PSEUDONYMITY IN THE CYBERSPACE

“Anonymity in the virtual landscape is much different than in real life.”- JAON Cranford Teague

Whenever people engage in activities in the cyberspace, they can always calibrate how others perceive
them. Some hide accurate representations of themselves beneath cloaks of falsehoods, while others try
to translate their real-world personas for a digital audience (or in Facebook terms, your “friend list”) as
closely as possible. Because mediated technologies can only function up to a point, people only have a
limited set of stimuli in projecting a sense of self from uploaded pictures to published posts.

Despite this, people have different representatives of themselves positioned on a continuum of

ANONYMITY

Honesty and openness are hallmark virtues, though in some cases, they need to take the backseat to
privacy. As defined by Andrew Wood & Matthew Smith (2005), anonymity, which occupies one end of
the identity continuum. Occasionally, taking part in online interactions sometimes require that one’s
digitally performed identity be temporarily concealed. As the justification behind online anonymity is
rather heavily distributed, its exploration in the chapter will alternate between protection and
accountability. Protection is emphasized when it involves the act of whistleblowing on certain illegalities,
while premium is put on accountability when the user’s online activity, while hiding behind the safety
veil of anonymity, borders on the libelous.

Example:

The question and answer websites. Ask.fm and Formspring (now known as Spring.me under new
management) offer users optional anonymity when they publish questions. One issue here is the
absence of user accountability when he/she posts, or ask about, something demeaning or disparaging.

PSEUDONYMITY

Pseudonymity, on the other hand lies in the middle of the identity continuum, especially as it combines
both the benefit of anonymity and the joys assuming some semblance of identity. Unlike in anonymity
where one remains, by and large, unknown and faceless, pseudonymity affords a user with a “self”,
albeit a stylized or refashioned one. The British author Arthur Blair is one example. Better known as
George Orwell, who wrote landmark literary works like “Animal Farm” and “1984”, his pseudonym has
since come to be associated with any dystopian text (through the descriptive buzzword “Orwellian”).
Another is during the Spanish times when Filipino propagandists who wrote for the La Solidaridad and
other related publications used several pennames (“Dimasalang” and Laong -Lana” for Jose Rizal, “Taga-
Ilog” for Antonio Luna et al.) to protect themselves from prosecution. Notice how such monikers do not
tell readers who wrote what, but are still heavily suggestive of the author’s self-representations. Today,
most online games furnish users the option of pseudonymity through unique user names, letting them
vent against their opponents without openly revealing who they are.

Example:

The admins of the brash, matter-of-fact food review page “MasarapBa” and the satirical “Senyora” (The
exaggerated online behavior of which is directly based on Senyora Santibanez: the main antagonist in
the ‘90s Mexican teledrama “Marimar”) both should their true identities with alternative ones. They are
careful not to reveal their actual selves so as not to ruin the mystique surrounding their online
character.

Pop-up question 5:

Relate an online experience wherein you have enjoyed the protective veil of either anonymity or
pseudonymity. How was it?

THE DISINHIBITED SELF

“People reveal as much of their mental processes online, simply because the psychological effects of
anonymity just means that a whole raft of inhibitions is left alone when people lag on”

-Joanne Harris

ACTIVITY 6

Think of at least 2 online behaviors that will fall unh

;ghjghjjjl;oko;p98uiolhukhuil;huulih,’uklhk’;k’’uioluhkder each of the six factors that cause online

In face-to-face interactions, we often hold back on things we really want to say or do for fear of leaving a
negative impression. Also, we abide by a set of decorum in such situations because we are careful not to
paint a wrong portrait of who we are, “impressions management” is what Erving Goofman calls this in
the early parts of this chapter. But in the cyberspace, this might not be the case.

For John Suler (2004), such restrictions to behavior do not necessarily apply online. Unlike in real-life
encounters, individuals tend to act out more intensely and openly in virtual interactions. This is, in large
part attributed to the mediated nature of online communication, plus the protective veils in their
identities are promised when taking part in it (anonymity and pseudonymity). This phenomenon is what
he calls the online disinhibition effect, or the removal of social inhibitions and/or restrictions imposed
upon people’s behavior nwhen engaging in web. He further explains that there are two main categories
of behavior that fall under the above mentioned effect: benign disinhibition and toxic disinhibition.

Benign disinhibition is basically the relatively positive side of the said effect. Primarily, this focuses on
personal development, self understanding, and the exploration of new emotional domains of experience
(Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2015) in the virtual world. In other words, this is the digital equivalent to “self-
actualization”, or the act of working