I’m not sure you’d find the words ‘Esther Dyson‘ and ‘ignorant’ in the same sentence very often, but she certainly embarrassed herself in a recent interview with Internet Evolution. On the subject of anonymity on this internet she has this to say:

First, I was a much bigger fan of anonymity then than I am now. I thought it was cool. And it is, but it turns out anonymity really encourages bad behavior. I’m not in favor of the government tracking everybody and so forth, [but] at least persistent pseudonyms and communities and stuff like that makes everything a nicer place.

It’s like a lot of things. I’m pro choice, but I think abortion is an unfortunate thing. I think the same thing about anonymity: Everybody should have the right to it, but it’s not something one wants to encourage. And that’s not weasel words, that’s the reality of it.

[Anonymity] should be allowed. People should be able to make that choice, and there are many reasons to make that choice. If you live in an oppressive regime, you may well want people to be able to remain anonymous or have secret communications. But at the same time, it should not be encouraged, and it should be acknowledged that it’s a response to a bad situation.

So, apparently anonymity, like abortion, is a necessary evil. I think this reflects an extremely dated notion of anonymity on the internet. Freedom of speech under oppressive regimes isn’t the only legitimate reason to be anonymous on the internet. Sure, some people use the cloak of anonymity to say nasty things and behave badly. But anonymity also allows people to free themselves from the prejudices, stigmas, and social pressures. I’m not saying anything new here.

I would be willing to bet that the freeing applications of anonymity far, far outweigh the nasty ones. Meanwhile, I think Dyson’s views reflect a stark dichotomy that doesn’t really exist. The line between anonymous and not is not nearly so clear. Sure, either you have a persistent screen name or you don’t. Either your online identity is formally attached to your offline one, or it isn’t. But in reality, our identities are more fluid. Even without a persistent screen name, others may guess who I am from context and content. As a poster, I may be completely aware of this, but even a sheer blanket is enough to overcome the pressures that would silence me. In the other direction, what about sockpuppets? Bottom line, online identity isn’t so cut and dry.

I’m delving deeply into this topic in my dissertation, too, so it’s obviously close to my heart. In my research, though, I look at anonymity of content rather than anonymity of individual, in particular in online collective action situations (think user-generated content). I’m exploring the ways in which the popular notion that everything on the internet should be stamped with an identity is wrong - where the fact that your content can be identified is actually a disincentive for providing it.

Anyway, I think the analogy between abortion and anonymity on this internet is crass and dated. Suggesting that anonymity is ‘a response to a bad situation’ is only fair if you consider the reality of the world a ‘bad situation.’ Otherwise, it’s just our situation. Even then, I think it’s important to start looking at anonymity through a more positive lens, and at the same time try to shake off the all-too-common idea that everything you do on the web, anywhere, should be stamped with an ID.

Amazon Web Services is making a variety of large data sets available in the cloud. This is great news, as these giant data sets are often difficult to find, compile, and host.

So far the list of data sets includes some biological and chemical data, census info. and labor reports. I’d love to see this list grow to include the complete history of the GSS, for example. In another area, Amazon should keep a complete, unpacked, current dump of Wikipedia in the cloud. The complete XML dump of the English language Wikipedia with all revisions is in the 10s of terabytes, I think.

New word from the Pew Internet and American Life project is that the internet isn’t driving a wedge between family members after all. Quite the opposite actually. It turns out mobile devices, digital media, and the internet are giving families new ways to keep in touch, new activities to share. Pew does really nice surveys, and this report has been written by some smart people. (Here’s an overview of new findings from CNet.)

I hope, then, that this will really put an end to anyone talking about the HomeNet study. Back in 1998, a group of researchers from CMU published a study (called HomeNet) that claimed, among other things, that the Internet increased social isolation. In fact, they claimed all sorts of negative social psychological influences. Of course, the media took the story up with gusto, writing headlines like ‘Sad, Lonely World Discovered in Cyberspace’ (from the New York Times). Oh no, the world will come crashing down.

But wait. Just a few years later, the researchers re-did the study with a new sample, and found that nearly all the negative influences had disappeared. Hallelujah, we’re saved! Rather than refuting their original results, however, the authors explained the reversal by noting that the internet had changed, and network effects combined with broader diffusion had eliminated the isolating effect of internet use. Hmmm. That might be part of the story.

But if you think that explanation seems too simple to be complete, I’d agree with you. Last year some colleagues and I re-examined the original HomeNet data, which the study’s authors kindly make freely available. We applied a technique called Matched Sampling in order to look at the influences of internet. Some day I’d really like to get around to publishing the results of our work here. To make a long story short, when you compare apples to apples - like people to like people - you find almost no negative influences of internet use in the original HomeNet data.

Now, I would never state this as a definitive result. Our method has flaws too. But it’s a good one, and just as carefully done as the CMU folks’. When the results differ in that situation, I start to worry that the results are model-dependent, and not reflecting a true inference. So, it’s not that the internet changed, though it most certainly did, it’s that the original inference might have been wrong. And that study was done by some very smart, careful researchers who used excellent statistical methods.

Why do I tell this long, geeky story now? Because I think refuting the HomeNet results is important for understanding the history of the internet. We should stop telling a story (if anyone is actually telling it), in which the internet isolated people at first, and then tapped them in. The internet is a case study in the diffusion of a new communication technology, and we should get the story straight. These new Pew data show what I believe has been true all along: people who are more social offline are more social online. The internet, mobile devices, etc. give people more ways to communicate. And rather than diffusing that communication over many new people, most people are using email, SMS, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to communicate with people they already know: their family and friends.

Well, I’ve spent the last year thinking about my dissertation proposal, the last 2 months writing it, and on Friday I’ll defend it. Eep. Actually, it’s been great, and I can’t wait to finally get started on this research that’s all my own. Or, mostly, since no one really has a new idea anymore.

As soon as my Quals. are over, I’m going to start blogging a lot more about my research, data as it comes in etc. For now, I can tell you that it’s called ‘Motivated by Information: Information About Online Collaboration as an Incentive for Participation.’ I’ve also been inspired by Joe to feed my proposal into the very cool Wordle word-cloud tool to see what comes out.

(Click for a larger version)

OMG! It’s about information! Also, I think it kind of looks like a grenade. An information grenade.