Who are we in cyberspace?
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), how does it change the way we communicate, and is it a good or bad thing in the world of communication?
‘Hiding’ behind a screen so to speak, using anonymous usernames and text to express ourselves, having fake ‘identities’ that cannot be traced back to us unless someone makes the effort to do a background check; how does it affect the way the CMC community behaves as opposed to how it would in real life?
I came across a newspaper report in TNP headlined “Rude names, lewd remarks, ‘uglified’ photos, unkind rumours…Celeb blogger Dawn Yang asks: Why go to such lengths to hate me?” The report was about the cyber-bullying that Dawn Yang (pictured above) has been receiving on online forums and such, with netizens doing things like photo-manipulating her pictures (such as attaching a male private part to her body, and making her face look like an ape’s). They also flamed her with insults like “Dawn is a slut, she is ugly, she is stupid, she is dung.”
Dawn Yang was quoted saying “How could a normal sane person not feel pained and aggrieved reading all this?…anonymity on the Internet is too helpful for those who hide behind it. I am sure these people would not dare to write the things they do if they had to do so with their real identities.”
Of course, people tend to be more unrestrained online. Minus the barriers that we encounter in real life communication such as our identities, reputations, appearances, etc., we are usually able to express ourselves more truthfully online than in RL. In a sense, CMC brings out ugly sides of ourselves that we’re not comfortable with revealing in RL. There are even people who, in Dawn Yang’s case, are so involved with their online activities that they spend hours photo-manipulating pictures and posting up derogatory posts about someone that they’ve never even met. This is definitely a case of accountability and mutual respect, which is inherent in RL, being completely ignored in the online world.
Then again, it would be a sweeping statement to say that CMC brings out the ugly sides of people. As observed by Sherry Turkle, “In cyberspace ,we…assume personae of our own creation. We have…people with whom we have fairly intimate relationships, but whom we may have never met.”
In constructing our online personalities, we also gain online friends and an online reputation in a particular area of the Internet. Not having the benefit of non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, paralinguistic, etc., we tend to be more sensitive and tactful when speaking to people online as text can be interpreted in many different ways (e.g. you might not intend to sound sarcastic, but the other person receiving your text message may think that you are). We are also more accepting of people, taking them at “text value”, and tend to be able to reveal more to our online friends due to the lack of criticism and judgment. If CMC brings out the ugly sides of people, so too does it, in a way, bring out the better sides of people.
So do you think that CMC is more of a good or bad thing in communication? In my opinion, being an avid Internet user myself, CMC paves the way for one to meet many people in various countries that one would otherwise not meet. We are able to exchange cultural information, learn about each other’s attitudes and behaviours, and talk about things that we are not able to in RL due to the fact that RL friends and ourselves tend to exist in the same ‘setting’. There are cyber-bullies, yes, and people who abuse anonymity on the Internet, but they are far less than the overall goodwill and respect that is found on the Net (or perhaps I don’t surf enough ‘flaming’ sites?).
What we should remember, though, is that no matter how anonymous you are on the net, you can still be traced. All those people who flamed Dawn Yang ‘anonymously’ are making a big mistake; they are giving their emotions a release through what they deem as anonymity on the Internet. If Dawn Yang chooses to trace them, the issue of accountability would come into play. Defamation and copyright violation? Who knows? One is never truly anonymous nor safe in cyberspace.
James replied:
well i think we Singaporeans are perhaps too “westernized” in the way we think and behave, especially the younger generations. something like the western supremacy and that anything to with the western culture is deemed as superior.
ethnocentric is seen more in other countries compared to Singapore. Like the given examples in your entry.
March 7, 2009 at 6:07 am. Permalink.
Pree replied:
Its a good point you bring up here. I think in terms of cyber space, people feel more secure in their anonymity, whether it be in LJ or myspace or any such medium. What happened in Dawn’s case however is not unusual. People use cyber space as a mean of releasing their frustration, of creating an entirely new persona from their usual selves, just to be different and feel unique from the rest of the world.
Its interesting how you say it brings out the best and worst in us, but i think in a way, it just shows us how human we are that we cannot even hide our emotions in cyber space. Even though we may show one side to ourselves, the other side invariably comes out, and though that is no justification of such abuse, i think it just goes to show how impossibly capable we are of both cruelty or kindness. And yes, one if never truly safe in cyberspace, but i think thats a risk you must take in cyberspace. These reports etc, arent new, and therefore you have to be careful about what you put up, what information you are willing to give about yourself etc.
March 10, 2009 at 6:20 pm. Permalink.
a.m. replied:
It is true that bullying becomes easier when you’re hidden behind the screen. I remember reading a TIME magazine article about such a case, and even people who are perfectly nice in real life find themselves saying hurtful things online simply because they believe they cannot be traced and thus it is made easier; there is no burden, no responsibility to be taken unlike real life.
I think the relations you make online are different from those you maek in real life because you have to take a lot more things for face value. You know nothing about the other party – how they look like, how their voice sounds like, where they live, their small traits and characteristics. A lot of people take advantage of this (“myspace angles” anyone?) Yet the truth is that the person at the other end is just that – a person. In the end, the way to get to know him or her is the same way you get to know people in real life – through communication and getting to know each other. There is only so much you can hide anyway.
You make a very good point about being able to trace people – if people knew that their true identities could be found out, I wonder if they would be scared into acting kinder?
March 10, 2009 at 9:53 pm. Permalink.
Javiera replied:
I’ve been around cyberspace for more than a decade now. I hadn’t count the years before. I’m not old, and it’s not like I’m exactly “up to date” with whatever goes on around here (hell, I still refuse to get myself in facebook), but I’ve been a part of the net for a long time, and I don’t think I’ve ever called it ‘hiding’. I understand the concept and I understand that’s what most people do here, because they don’t have anywhere else to go, or are afraid to go out to the ‘real world’. But for me, I show a part of myself here that I don’t show ‘outside’ not so much because I *can’t*, but because the net is the best place to do so. I mean, I have different groups of friends, because they have different interests and I met them in different places, so I talk to them about different things. How is that any different than expressing myself one way in the net, and another in real life? Hell, all my ‘real life’ friends know I hang out in the net (and what I do here), and my ‘virtual’ friends (the real close ones) know pretty well what I do in ‘real life’. Clearly, I do not understand the concept of ‘anonymity’.
In that sense, I don’t think of cyberspace as a place that gets the best or worse out of us. It’s just who we are, , no more or less, even when we’re faking it (that just makes us ‘fakers’). People that behave the worse here are probably no saints in real life, though they do know what they do is wrong, thankfully, or they wouldn’t hide behind anonymity. I fear a lot more those who actually believe they have the right to screw people over and treat them badly, because there’s no way to reason with them.
I’ve never had the need to create a ‘persona’. I think it’s too much work. I’ve never been that relevant in the circles where I hang out, nor have I wanted to be. I think that’s the reason some people do it, isn’t it? To get attention? The attention they probably have a harder time getting outside the net and trying to compensate something they probably think it’s lacking in them.
Personally, I have ‘virtual’ friends because I have not found in ‘real life’ people with some specific interest that my ‘virtual’ friends and myself share. Plus, as you wrote, it’s fun to try an understand stuff from a POV *outside* our usual settings. And I think that IS something that does makes us better people, *having perspective*. It’s something we can learn thanks to the net and use it in the ‘real’ world. And that, I think, it’s the real function of cyberspace. We come here to understand stuff about the world and about ourselves, and if we’re smart enough, we make that a tool to ‘face’ real life head on. Sadly, a lot of people get stuck on the first part, and afterward they don’t make the move to go outside again.
March 11, 2009 at 1:36 am. Permalink.
Lella replied:
I think it is reasonable that people try to create personas for themselves, since we already do that in our real lives. We act and speak differently in different situations, for instance you don’t speak to your boss the way you would speak to your mother, and you act in different ways to different friends. It’s part of what we are, because it makes us establish the relationships we have, and it makes us accept different behaviour in other people. You are far more likely to accept certain ill behaviour in work colleagues without saying anything than you are in your siblings.
I have a friend who has more than one online persona to the same people. One of her personas is nice and mild mannered, and the other one is brash and outspoken. In a way it is a kind of betrayal to the people who she associates with in both personas, or at least if they are unaware, as they are taking both of her personas as a complete individual, while in reality she is giving them two different facets of her real personality. Computer Mediated Communication makes this kind of interaction possible, as in real life it would be hard to keep up two personas of yourself to the same people since they would recognise you physically. The problem is, then, the fact that you are aware of what you are doing in showing two different parts of yourself to the same person — maybe one persona will start up arguments while the other persona offers comfort and sympathy. It is a kind of deception which can only be realised through the medium of hidden identity, and if the person never fully shows their whole self through one persona.
An example of possible online deception is The MsScribe Story, where one person created a whole community of imaginary personas around herself to promote her into popularity among the people she admired.
March 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm. Permalink.