Anonymous: An Exploration of (the lack) of Idenity on the Internet

As part of the Kansas State University Digital Ethnography Research Team's study of identity and anonymity on the Internet, I have begun a study of a movement that labels itself “Anonymous.” However, Anonymous is no movement in the traditional sense; it has been said that it is more like an Internet-wide phenomenon. According to Chris Landers of the Baltimore City Paper, quoting an appropriately anonymous source going by the pseudonym “Doc,” Anonymous is “the first Internet-based superconsciousness,” and Landers goes on to say, “Anonymous is a group, in the sense that a flock of birds is a group. How do you know they're a group? Because they're traveling in the same direction. And at any given moment, more birds could join, leave, peel off in another direction entirely”(Landers 2008).

The phenomenon's start can be credited to a Japanese image board in which the posts of anonymous users could be judged on the merit of their content, rather than by the name of the poster. This inspired the founding of 4chan.org, an image board composed of several forums devoted to various topics, predominantly anime, but their most popular forum is their random board, known as /b/. However, as one “anon” from Northern Virginia put it, “Anonymous existed before it was called Anonymous” (Landers 2008).

Anonymous, if it must be (loosely) defined, is a mass of faceless pranksters, protesters, activists humorists, and lurkers found across the Internet and all over the world, who simply choose, for whatever reason, to remain unidentified. They are found on 4chan.org, in /b/, but also on humor sites like SomethingAwful.com, or activist sites like whyweprotest.net, which was spawned as a result of a “raid” on the Church of Scientology planned by the anonymous posters in /b/; they are also found posting on any Internet news site or blog that allows anonymous posting. In short, this manifestation of anonymity is virtually everywhere. They come from all walks of life – different religions, different cultures, and have come together to create, intentionally or unintentionally, a subculture of their own, in which anyone choosing to remain unknown may participate.

A study of Anonymous is important to our wider study of identity and anonymity as it hints at the future of identity in the digital age; as society grows and changes, these two competing states, being known and being unknown, alternate in their importance to society. The more faceless we come to feel, the more important it is to be recognized; and yet, the more recognizable we become, the more we retreat and seek the privacy of the facelessness of which we despair. The culture of Anonymous rebels against the enforced order that causes this conflict, choosing instead to revel in the chaos caused by their various pranks and protests. In an age of microcelebrity and diminishing privacy, Anonymous and their activities paradoxically make famous (or infamous) the very faceless mass that is defined by the name. It mocks those seeking their own fifteen minutes of fame, while as a phenomenon, it has become famous, itself, as have certain members and former members identified by pseudonyms or whose private, identifying information has been leaked onto the Internet – an activity known as being “doxed.”

I began my study in October of 2008, lurking in /b/ and on whyweprotest.net; thus far, I have had no interactions with members of /b/, and have had only fleeting conversations with members of Why We Protest (WWP) on their IRC channel following an attack on their site on November 2, 2008; these conversations were entirely casual and superficial in nature, and yet were revealing in the language used; I was immediatedly greeted as a potential “scilon” (a member of the Church of Scientology or one of its sympathizers) or OSA (a member of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs). This pervasive paranoia seems only half-joking; while those who protest Scientology genuinely fear identification at the hands of the Church, out of concern for alleged attacks of reprisal, this seems to also be a way of saying, “Welcome to WWP . It's a bad idea to trust anyone; especially on the Internet.” This is the way many at WWP greet everyone – even people whose Internet pseudonyms they recognize.

My research at /b/, however, has been another matter, entirely. There seems to be very little in the way of activism, though there still lurks the occasional anti-Scientology protester here and there. A “random” image board, it is frequently populated with pornographic photographs and hate speech; there is hardly a post that does not contain a racial or sexual slur. However, there seems to be a playfulness to this – there is the sense that such insulting speech is only posted because it will offend. Though I can see no clear way of every discovering this for certain, I suspect that some who post these slurs are members of the minority groups they insult, and the posts are a form of irony for them. Despite the frequent claim by members of /b/, “there are no girls on the Internets,” perhaps some of the posters on /b/ are, in fact, women, and not the stereotypical image of the average /b/tard as being a white male teen in his grandmother's basement.

Infamously dubbed “the asshole of the Internet,” /b/ can actually surprise those who expect to see nothing but popular memes, porn and vicious insult for the sake of it. In one recent example, a poster seeking advice on how to deal with his crumbling relationship with his girlfriend, threatening to turn to drugs and alcohol to cope, or, failing that, to “an hero,” a popular meme on /b/ that means to commit suicide, was met with posts filled with well-intentioned, helpful advice, urging him to share his feelings with his girlfriend, to avoid drugs, alcohol and suicide, and to work on himself for himself, rather than for her; however, /b/ being what it is, he also received posts like the following: “She's a bitch. You're a faggot. Both of you die in a fire.”

There's a language to Anonymous, involving a complex amalgamation of 1337, memes, acronyms and in-jokes that the rest of us just don't get - and while there are commonalities between the various sites that are home to those who call themselves "Anonymous", there are certain words and phrases that are more heavily identified with one group or another. What's "in" lingo for Project Chanology might be out of step with /b/, and what's popular there might not be noteworthy at SomethingAwful. And even more covert and deep-core language might tell us the difference between a poster who is "obviously" joking, with one who means what they say - while the medium of text makes sarcasm and playful humor harder to recognize, like any other culture, there are probably subtle signals not obvious to an outsider which tells a member of the group how serious the "speaker" is. This is one of those more complex questions I'm hoping to find an answer to.

As my research thus far has only been limited to two of numerous sites that fall under the umbrella of Anonymous, my research does not really provide enough context to adequately describe the phenomon; to correct this, I will be expanding my research to include other groups and sites, like SomethingAwful.com, Patriotic Nigras, and Encyclopedia Dramatica; more will be added as my research reveals other potential field sites. It is my intention to eventually interact with posters on each of these forums, under the same pseudonym that I am using to present this research, Femina Incognita; I will be giving them full disclosure of our project, its and my intentions, and access to our research hub so that they may thoroughly investigate the sincerity of our work. I will also attend at least one Chanology protest of Scientology, and participate anonymously, masked as they are, though I will fully inform the protesters as to the nature of my presence.

Works Cited

The Baltimore City Paper. April 2, 2008. “Anonymous Takes On Scientology (and Doesn't Afraid of Anything) by Chris Landers. http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=15543

4chan.org

SomethingAwful.com

encyclopediadramatica.com

Where am I, who are these people, and why can't we think for ourselves? A reflection on Media Ecology and Ambient Intimacy

The latest reading for K-State's Digital Ethnography research group consisted of two fascinating articles: one an excerpt from Lum's "Notes Toward an Intellectual History of Media Ecology" and the other, Clive Thompson on "Ambient Intimacy." So what exactly do they mean for this class, and more importantly, for human beings communicating through various media today?

For one thing, as Lum points out, the medium or media used to convey a message intrinsically changes it; this is something I think many of us tend to overlook. I read part of this article outloud to my husband, and rather shamefacedly had to admit, as he nodded smugly, that I was guilty of this, and that he had told me more than once I was looking at it the wrong way: whenever a favorite book of mine was adapted to the big screen, I would insist on seeing the film, then complain irritably later that the film was utterly misrepresenting the book; as both he and Lum have pointed out, from a media ecological perspective, it just makes more sense to look at the two media as conveying different messages, though they are derived from the same "story" that the original author had in mind. Different forms of media, the introduction of new media technology, can have huge impacts on culture - oral cultures are dominated by the elder elites, the possessors of vast amounts of knowledge coveted by their people; and yet, when you introduce literacy, that power is reduced, now shared with younger people who can absorb that knowledge through reading it. Printed media creates new jobs and allows information to be more widely disseminated, and electronic media carries this even further. In "Guns, Germs and Steel," Jared Diamond proposed that it was geography that led to the hegemony of Eurasian societies; if that is so, then the technology that arose from such convenient location may well be the key to connecting the underprivileged and underrepresented peoples of the world, if this new media can be extended within their reach. But is the interconnectedness of everyone the greatest idea?

Clive Thompson tackled this idea in his article on ambient intimacy. People are now connected, mostly through weak ties, to hundreds, sometimes thousands of people on such services as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace. They're updated minute by minute on the minutiae of their friends' daily lives - in fact, some of these people on their "friends lists" aren't even their friends, in the strictest sense of the word - they may never have met them, but simply know of them due to celebrity or microcelebrity status. Even fictional characters have Twitter accounts - the characters of one of my favorite webcomics, Questionable Content, have their own Twitter feeds, right down to Pintsize the AnthroPC, who isn't even a fictional representation of a human or animal, but rather a fictional representation of a sort of sentient, lewd, pocket-sized computer that walks and talks. I barely touch my Twitter, unlike many people, but even I have succumbed to this, and follow each character's Twitter feed (checking it once every week or so), simply because it's funny. But why do I, or anyone else for that matter, want to know what's going on in the life of a fictional character outside its usual episodic environment? And what does this do to our ability to strongly relate emotionally to others?

Still, it does have its advantages; in some ways, as Thompson points out, it strengthens our relationships with those we're close to, and broadens our network of weak-ties, those people we know, but not well, who might be in a better position to help us when those who are close to us, and therefore probably like us, are too like us to offer us ideas and opportunities that have not occurred to us.

Ultimately, though, are we really getting to know anyone by watching these tiny, insignificant details of their lives on RSS feeds? Are we joining these services because we want to...or because everyone else is? I resisted MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter for the longest time, and simply because everyone I knew had them, I eventually got them, succumbing to the constant cries of, "You should get a MySpace!/Why aren't you on Facebook?/Follow my Twitter, please!" I still resist, checking them only sporadically, but with everything we've been studying lately, I find myself struggling between an urge to check them more (out of alternating boredom and paranoia) and an urge to just shut off every electronic device in my house and escape from all this technology for a little while - and start thinking for myself again.