Engaging our Newly Defined Target Users

Great stuff Laura, and I agree that this shift in our user group to a more targeted demographic with definite characteristics will better help us meet their online anonymity needs.

In terms of attracting these users to our site, we could capitalise on our advocacy message by hosting events such as protests or rallies. For instance, one of these could be against the Federal Government's proposed measures to make compulsory the storing of online activity by ISPs (Internet Service Providers) and censorship of the details of these plans- both great threats to the freedoms of anonymous users of the internet.

A way to gain the critical mass at these events and keep people coming back to our site could be through Facebook and Twitter, to invite people to attend and cover the event from the ground. We could also make our own Youtube channel to regularly post videos highlighting the existence of the challenges to online anonymity to help draw in those who are thinking of joining us. And as all those who attend the event/rally would have to remain masked I'm sure this could catch the eye of the mainstream media too...

CONSTRUING THE CRITICISM

Moving beyond our presentation today, we believe that it is important to discuss Fiona’s input and criticisms.

Our major concern regards the narrowing down of our target audience. We understand and appreciate the need to have a more acutely defined audience demographic and thus we have chosen to focus on offering our site as the first point of call for political dissidents.

These “marginalised” individuals are looking to communicate their beliefs, ideas and concerns, without fear of persecution (well not in Australia at least), stigmatisation or further marginalisation. Our website provides guidance and support related to online anonymity and ways in which this mode of communication can assist the cause of political dissent.

It is important to accurately define all terms we engage with, and so below is an explanation of how we have defined our target audience.

A political dissident is a dissenter from political orthodoxy. They protest, object or contest established policy and prescriptions, henceforth sidelining them from the mainstream. 

In order to effectively communicate with our target audience, we have further narrowed down the demographic scope to focus on dissidents residing to the left of centre. Commonly, such dissenters are fighting for the rights of the masses, the working class and the under privileged.

The GGs support this left-wing fight and wish to support the communicative strategies and safety of these political dissidents through providing them with an interactive and educational online point of call for maintaining online anonymity, so as to ensure their future success and efficiency.

Prominent and admirable left wing dissidents include Karl Marx, famed Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy and of course, Nelson Mandela.

In light of the renewed specificity of our target audience, GG has taken on a new stance. We recognise the influence of context in the current technological era and wish to act as an advocacy group that supports the right to free speech as well as communicative anonymity and puts up a damn good fight against all forms of censorship, particularly regarding the internet which is the ‘freest’ mode of mass communication available to each and every citizen.

In short, we hope to preserve and promote the communicative power of marginalised political dissidents, to fight censorship and preserve our democratic right to free speech.  

With the influx of social media and the unlimited potential of Web 3.0 (thank you MECO peers), we are striving to promote the rights of all people and to give the voiceless a voice. We are hoping to do so by staying abreast of the technological evolution in which anonymity is being challenged.

We predict our target audience to be technologically astute, between the ages of 18 and 55 years of age. There is a tendency for the older portion of this demographic, from 38 years and above, to be more concerned with technological advances and issues of privacy, simply given their shorter exposure to the potential of online communication. The entire group is defined by an interest in politics and are classed as adults (+18) for legal purposes and the fact that in Australia this is the age that political advocacy is lawfully recognised and legitimised.

In all, we are seeking to advocate free speech through linking the communicative methods of political dissenters with ANONYMITY.

*** As an aside, we are looking to further incorporate social media into our communication strategy. We hope to organise events for our “anonymous” followership. This isn’t so easy however, as of course these people wish to maintain their anonymity. One way we thought we could by pass this hurdle was to respect their anonymity by hosting a masquerade ball, where we invite GG followers, supports and creators to an event at which we encourage mask wearing as a pre-requisite. The mystery and strangeness of the event would likely attract media attention which is a positive motion for our cause, in using the media as a vessel for promotion.

Facebook and Twitter would be the major forms of communication of such events and also provide GG users/followers to create communication portals under the guise of a pseudonym, which as discussed in other posts, is one strategy that we endorse.

The Importance of Privacy to the Anonymous Online

The other day, I stumbled upon a rather amusing example of the failure of online privacy in a collaborative forum. This particular instance occurred on an innocuous e-online knowledge sharing site, webCT, which many university subjects harness to combine knowledge, expertise and questions to enhance the learning experience. Whilst scanning the general administrative queries about the subject, an unfortunate post which blurred the boundaries of the public and the private appeared. An unwitting online “noob” had unfortunately posted on the discussion board a comment she thought only her tutor could see – an apology for missing a lecture due to an acute urinary tract infection. This social faux pas was plastered across the discussion board, complete with the name of said poster.

Once my initial pity at the unsuspecting victim of online privacy passed, I began to think about how often this kind of thing must occur. In an age when people are taught to expose themselves to strangers on social media platforms, privacy has grown to become a central issue for many people on the web. But many people clearly are unsure of the repercussions resulting from such blatant self-promotion, and do not pay sufficient attention to how visible their private information is on the web. As the above anecdote goes to show, privacy settings are crucial to ensure that people don’t unintentionally expose themselves. 

Image: Dave Pearson; Attribution-NonCommercial - No Derivs 2.0 Generic

So, what is privacy?


A great definition of online privacy which explores the social ramifications of the issue comes from Danah Boyd in her article, “Facebook’s Privacy Trainwreck: Exposure, Invasion, and Social Convergence”:

Yet, privacy is not simply about zeros and ones, it is about how people experience their relationship with others and with information. Privacy is a sense of control over information, the context where the sharing takes place, and the audience who can gain access.                                                                                                        (2008: 18)

The boundaries of what remains confidential, private information and what becomes public knowledge are greatly overlapping in online networks, to the detriment of the individual who wishes to remain an anonymous user of the internet. When this sense of control over the information is lost, and the contextual boundaries of who can access this knowledge are breached, a sense of vulnerability and invasion can ensue (Boyd 2008:14). While having an open, public profile on social media sites can help initiate the online user into new networks and relationships, I believe it’s important that users remain cognisant of the fact that personal information shared can have broader social implications, and that users are not necessarily afforded “security through obscurity” in online settings (Boyd 2008:15).

Compounding this fact is the medium itself, which encourages parrhesia and uninhibits the individual. As this unbelievable case from the United States shows, where a woman found out about her husband’s secret wedding on Facebook, a willingness to share our lives online can ultimately lead to information ending up in the wrong hands. When online, we are able to call upon several identities to suit our audience and the topic of discussion at any given time. However, the normative and contextual cues that dictate how people act in a given social setting disappear whilst online, as users are required to “handle disparate audiences simultaneously without a social script” (Boyd 2008: 18). As Clay Shirky claims in the video below, all that is becoming accessible is seen as acceptable within online social networks:






This becomes particularly problematic for those who wish to anonymously speak truth to power, as the actual level of protection they are afforded through the medium becomes unclear. A further motive for being anonymous online would be to protect one’s privacy at a time of hyper-surveillance by marketers and employers alike. Alison Hearn suggests that projects of defining and promoting the “branded” self on social media sites such as Facebook are “singularly focused on attracting attention and acquiring cultural and monetary value” (Hearn 2008:123). Thus, when the information sharing is only occurring in a one-way flow, and the data is used for political and economic ends, then users must be aware of how to improve their privacy, particularly if they are dealing with sensitive data as our anonymous target user group will be.

Accordingly, our website should strive to emphasise how anonymous users of the internet can maximise their privacy to avoid being unmasked. This could include a ‘How-to’ guide explaining the ins and outs of:

• Hiding the user’s IP address
  
• Adjusting their proxy settings
  
• Limiting privacy settings on social media
  
  

Such information will be essential on our anonymity platform to let users know about the privacy pitfalls that lie in the new internetworked society. But importantly, this ‘how-to’ information should be made more accessible for the technically uninitiated, to debunk the difficulties and make it relevant for a vast array of users from all walks of life.

The Naive Net User

In 1993, cartoonist Peter Steiner drew this now-famous comic for the New
Yorker newspaper. At the time, it perfectly captured a key issue surrounding
emerging Internet technology, namely the ability to communicate with someone
online completely anonymously. However, with the emergence of social media
in the last decade, the resonance of this cartoon has faded. While anonymity is
still an important part of Internet culture, it is rapidly being replaced by a more
open mentality. In the social media world, having a clearly defined identity is not
only expected, but embraced. More often than not, you want the world to see
your Facebook page, you blog, your Twitter, or your Flickr account.

This ever-growing self-promoting approach to Internet use
has lead us - the 'Guerrilla Ghosts' - to recognise the importance of online
anonymity. As we continue to develop our website idea, our latest team
discussions have refined our target user group to 'naïve net
users'. This refers to people like ourselves - unsuspecting and uninformed
Internet users who are unaware of the risks associated with putting
themselves 'out there' on the World Wide Web. This not only means that we are
able relate to the needs of our user group, but it also means that we can
explore the issue in a way that doesn't over-complicate the matter, or make it
too technical. Sometimes simplicity is best. By deciding upon this crucial element
of our website, it has allowed us to more specifically plan the layout, design
and content of our site.

The home page, will be crucial in clearly outlining what our website is about - namely the issue of online anonymity, its attributes, and advice on why/how to become anonymous. This introductory page will be simple and clear so as to appeal to our target user group of uninformed Internet users who have never given much thought to online anonymity, and therefore do not have much knowledge on the issue. Just as importantly, the homepage will introduce the user to the mood and design of the website. One way in which we are aiming to differ from other websites dealing with the issue of online anonymity is by being unique and creative in our design. Existing sites on similar topics generally explore the issue fairly blandly through text, presenting the facts of the issue in a straightforward manner. An example of this is the website 'Ehow - How to be Anonymous Online'. Guerrilla Ghosts, however, want our website to be visually appealing as well as interactive. We will aim to create a dark, gritty and mysterious mood, which will be emphasised by the fact that we ourselves - the websites creators - will remain anonymous. Through this self-reflexivity we will be literally practicing what we preach. We will also build in tools and services such as Youtube, Flickr and Skype to ensure that our site is informative yet interactive. This is a way we believe we can draw people into an issue they have previously dismissed. I guess you could call it our guerrilla tactics haha!!

Our next page will be just as important as the homepage, outlining to users why
it is important to be anonymous online, thus justifying why they should continue
exploring our website. Shock tactics and statistics will be used to highlight our
argument, an example of which can be seen in the second reading for this
week, 'Beyond Google' Online Newsgathering: Research and Reporting for
Journalism by S. Quinn and S. Lamble. This article describes the resource of
the Internet Archive, commonly referred to as the WayBackMachine. This
archive stores different versions of a large number of web pages and historic
portal entry points dating from the mid-1990s, and can be used "to harvest a
plethora of information" ranging from background information on individuals
and companies, as well as details of things written or said in the past. The
WayBackMachine even has the ability to uncover how a person has changed
their personal facts over time, highlighting the thoroughness of this resource in
investigating individuals private details and history.

In ensuring we cover all aspects and angles of the issue, we will spend some time
investigating the risks of anonymity. At the same time, however, we will try to counter some of the negative connotations of online anonymity, such as its ability to allow individuals
to broadcast offensive, inflammatory, racist, derogatory material. As this weeks
first reading 'Google, Links and Popularity vs. Authority' by S. Finklestein
explains, Internet authorities (namely search engines such as Google) are
working towards limiting negative online content, stating "when an illegal site is
discovered, search engines like Google will remove such sites from their
indices in order to abide by the law", as will Google "place sites on certain
blacklists if they are illegal". There are thus some parameters in place to ensure
online anonymity is used productively. Similarly, as explored in the NY Times
article 'News Articles Rethink Anonymous Online Comments', many news
organisations now either review every comment before it goes online, review
comments after they are posted, or allow readers to flag objectionable comments
for removal.

Furthermore, this weeks first reading presents the very valid point that "some
responsibility for this (controversial online content) needs to rest on our own
shoulders …we have to prepare our kids for things they come across on the
Internet. This is part of the nature of an Internet world. The disadvantage is we
see more of it and our kids see more of it. The advantage is, we see more of it,
so we're able to respond to it." It seems that good always accompanies bad,
but one must weigh up whether the benefits of online anonymity outweigh its
problems. We believe it does!

Although not set in stone, some ideas for the remaining pages of our website
include
1. A 'How-To' Guide to Online Anonymity: We will incorporate interactive tips,
hints and advice to distinguish our website from other sites on the same topic.
For example, rather than simply using text to present step-by-step instructions
in ensuring anonymity, we will provide a video demonstration.
2. A Faceless Forum: Users will be able to ask questions, as well as discuss
and share their thoughts and experiences concerning online anonymity.
3. A profile/diary of an anonymous blogger.
4. The Future of Anonymity: An investigation into where anonymity is heading
5. The Final Reveal: We will reveal our identities and reflect on how our
investigation has changed our view and understanding of online anonymity.

We hope you like the sound of what we have planned! We are looking forward
to getting our website up and running, and hopefully encouraging you all to
become a bit more anonymous :)

--

Anonymity: Alienation Antidote?

A simple google search allows for the easy discovery of a number of articles concerning the problems that online anonymity may be generating. Nonetheless, our website should be concerned with how to withhold from these problems, employing an anonymous persona purely to spawn positive feedback in an online world flooded with never-ending bickering and racism of all kinds.

Of course, as an article recommended by our online mentor Fiona Martin mentions, the freedom of anonymous online posting has allowed for manipulation of content and an abusive, malicious and untruthful way of distributing lies or using a façade to cover up hidden agendas.

But, let’s take a deeper gaze into the playground of online anonymity and have a look at some ways in which it has benefitted individuals and the wider population who participate in the interactive world wide web.

Image: David Pattern CC by Attribution 2.0 Generic

 

 

 

The internet is a community, it offers endless forums for opinions to be delivered and debated upon under the push and pull of a social contract. Most obviously, online pseudonyms and mystery is necessary to assert one’s right to freedom of speech. In an age of conservatism and civil rights mess across many nations, the fear to assert one’s opinion must be protected as a basic right to living. The average citizen should not be stripped of his right to flaunt one’s emotion, opinion, educated facts or thought processes. Perhaps, online forums may monitor such posts for racial and offensive dissertation, but if these messages are delivered with respect, worldly knowledge and worthy intention then the anonymity of the author should not be of any concern.

Take, for example, Yochai Benkler’s use of Wikipedia in “The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom”. This text allows for the perfect understanding of peer production and the benefits of group collaboration in the effective and best outcome of an online construction. Where’s the importance of the author? Like Richard Stallman, Benkler believes that online software is about freedom of speech, and thus Wikipedia allows for “anyone, including anonymous passersby, to edit almost any page in the entire project” (p.70). The author is not important, as long as any borrowed information is attributed to its rightful source and that a certain level of self-discipline is maintained in order to operate faithfully and effectively online. Benkler says, “individuals pool their time, experience, wisdom and creativity to form new information, knowledge and cultural goods.” Isn’t this what is most important online? Why do we always have to attribute every piece of text online to a personality, particularly if that author chooses to remain anonymous?

Online anonymity is unavoidable.

It has become an embedded and necessary part of our internet culture. I’m not blind, of course I hear about and read first hand about all the online bickering that goes on. But can’t we all just see this for its pettiness and realize that online anonymity has so many more beneficial uses than unfavorable ones? We should embrace it for its advantages instead of demonize it for its disadvantages. If I can do it, why can’t you?

So, enough debate and convincing here. Let’s pull this all back down to earth and understand why this is relevant to the creation of our website. We want to focus on the meaningful communication tool that online anonymity may be for you. We want to demonstrate how it is an entirely useful platform for beneficial expression. How? Well let’s take a few points from Englund and Finney as direction: for them, a lot of it is about the client, for us – the target audience.

Who exactly is our target audience though?

Well, at this preliminary stage we aren’t so sure yet. Here’s a few ideas, one of which I am particularly keen on:

1. Activists/Dissidents: People wanting political or social change are often limited to what they can say, how they can say it and where they can say it. This applies to people world wide, whether they are situated in countries such as China that faces high censorship laws or countries such as Australia where freedom of speech is often taken for granted.

2. Whistleblowers: for example, those who leak to Wikileaks

3. Those who are marginalized in society: People who are targeted, bullied, alienated and undermined in communities often feel as though their voice cannot be heard. Online anonymity provides an easy avenue for them to voice themselves. This target market would also include people who want to share information such as a ‘how to grow marijuana’ manual without being named. For me, this is where our audience lies but more research will need to be done to confirm or deny this idea.

Englund and Finney ask:

1. What content structure will the user relate to

2. What is the relevance of information to the user (we must have boundaries and objectives)

3. What benefits and achievements will the user take from this website

These are the questions that I need to research more clearly and that hopefully I will be answering when I next tune into Guerrilla Ghosts…

Until then...

                                          What do you think about this?

The darker side of online anonymity...

I agree that anonymity on the internet presents a rich area for debate in today's highly inter-networked society. While it provides an outlet for the "voiceless", I think another interesting facet of online anonymity is when it is used in damaging ways.

Take for example the group Anonymous, which has incited a barrage of criticism in the media over its political incorrectness. This "subculture" of participants provides a platform for users to post commentary without the need for a user name, which in some contexts can lead to bigotry and a perpetuation of negative stereotypes. As this hilarious scare-mongering from Fox News reveals, it has also been linked to hacking Myspace accounts:



Another website that causes some controversy with anonymous online users is Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED), a satiric open wiki that parodies serious wikis such as Wikipedia. Here users only need to use a pseudonym or an 'avatar' profile to be able to post pages on everything and anything, with censorship not a concern. As a result, the site has immense shock value with some content on the site criticised for its blatant racist and misogynistic content, and through uncensored material being posted from other shock sites directly to this website (often sexually explicit). ED is also an internet subculture which mocks those unacquainted with the internet, seen through their slogan "In lulz we trust", while also helping to spread new internet memes and viral videos.

A similar site is 4chan, with 5.9 million people visiting the site every month. As Julian Dibbell of Wired.com says of the site, 4chan is "Filled with hundreds of thousands of brief, anonymous messages and crude graphics uploaded by the site's mostly male, mostly twentysomething users...4chan is a fountainhead of twisted, scatological, absurd, and sometimes brilliant low-brow humor".

Sites such as ED and 4chan provide an example of the practice of "trolling", whereby a user (often anonymous) posts intentionally inflammatory, off-topic messages into an online community (such as an online discussion forum or blog) with the sole purpose to provoke the other users into an emotional response, or simply to distract the discussion. This practice has gained attention recently in the Australian media in the case of "Queensland Facebook 'Troll'" Jessica Cook, who allegedly used a false identity to deface a Facebook tribute page.

These forums provide beg the question: when it comes to the internet and free speech, should everything be allowed to be posted to these sites in an ad hoc fashion without moderators or censorship, or should some level of restraint or legal consequences face those who set out to intentionally offend on the internet? While it's all well and good to set out with a noble cause as an anonymous online crusader, expounding civil liberties and free speech and exposing injustice, what happens when the inverse is true, and a user's primary goal is to malign large sections of society just "for lulz"?

Kind of reminds me of the problems Homer Simpson faced when he made unsubstantiated claims based on gossip on his website as "Mr X"...

The Guerrilla Ghosts

To further develop our conceptual assessment of anonymity, an understanding of culture jamming and tactical media is useful. Week Three's lecture and readings provide important insight into the relevance of these techniques and how their employment forges effective cyber communication possibilities.

Our website is looking at the freedoms attached to online anonymity and the way that communication is more truthfully appropriated and meaningful under the guise of an identity pseudonym or the illusive ‘anon’ persona.

Being anonymous doesn’t mean being identity-less. One’s online identity is defined by the type of presence they command in cyber space and the sorts of messages they communicate. An anonymous identity is an identity nonetheless, but instead of limiting communication and hindering truthful discussion, anonymous users can freely communicate their ideas and beliefs and exercise their civil liberties without fear of persecution, punishment or censorship.

In short, our site is looking to develop a ‘how to’ guide to being anonymous online. At the moment we are looking to include information about:

- How: to be anonymous guide – tips and tools (software which minimises online trails)

- Who: is anonymous online – profile a famed anonymous blogger 
- What is anonymity/ a pseudonym??

- Why be anonymous - pluses and pitfalls

- Where is it heading: in 10 years what will the status of online anonymity reflect?

We will also need to investigate the legality of anonymity online, the scope for defamatory accusations and inform our users about the boundaries their anonymity manifests within the legal sphere of cyber space.

So how does culture jamming and tactical media link to the concept of cyber anonymity?

The WHO section of the site establishes the potential to engage in a viral tactic: whereby we will leave the forum open for other anonymous internet users to include themselves to the list of profiled anonymous identities. This is an interactive mode of communication, inviting those interested in the concept to include themselves in discussions, developments etc – providing potential for the site to be shared amongst the anonymous cyber community.

Culture jamming includes elements of postmodern aesthetics: uses techniques such as collage, juxtaposition and ironic investigation (Meikle, 2002, p. 131). Our site is an ironic investigation as it will be a self-reflexive icon where four ANONYMOUS identities (our four group members) will use the internet as a medium to communicate ideas about the limitations of the internet - “Cultural Jamming as a way to get dysfunctional culture to bite at its own tail”.

The tendency and potential for online content to be spread and experience unfaltering longevity (considering the ease with which information is sought and found) is an important feature linked to the desire for anonymity and we will of course, practice what we preach.

Our overarching motivation – like Adbusters and the Yesmen and other registered cultural jammers – is the need to change an element of our world: namely the freedom with which we communicate.

The dysfunctional elements of the media include things like over exposure (Facebook), lacking privacy (Google Earth) and censorship, all of which diminish our civil liberties and abolish the concept of free speech. We don’t believe that online forums should be filtered and weeded of all comments deemed “unfit” for publication. This is a clear breach of our right as citizens of a democratic country to freedom of speech.

However, in the present communication context such censorship isn’t necessary as the prevalence of self censorship has developed and evolved to mirror people’s social fear of rejection and marginalisation. People monitor their actions and dilute their beliefs in order to make them digestible for the greatest possible audience.  Without realising, people create an identity through which to communicate – be it online or elsewhere, even in everyday conversations – where they consciously ‘sugar coat’  their ideas/beliefs/words so as to avoid offending their peers.

What people fail to realise is that contention motivates change and evolution.

Offending others is the path that leads towards change. It ignites fury and dissatisfaction which in turn, sparks determination and revolt against embedded social perceptions. It is important to be challenged, offended, publically debated against or ethically wrestled with in order for the rebellion inside mankind is to be ignited.

Take Facebook as the key example in this discussion. FB encourages the forging of a public identity. People get caught up in the maintenance of that identity. Nothing is more bleedingly obvious than the way people have filtered their likes and dislikes, favourite movies and songs to reflect trends and what is considered “cool”. Conversation is censored, where apparently provocative truths and realities are saved private inboxes rather than public wall posts.

Why? FEAR.

Anonymity removes the element of fear associated with disrupting the status quo. And it is this that we are encouraging through our proposed website.  

Culture jamming is usually toyed with under facades and manufactured identities where cyber users act with uninhibited mobility and flexibility. Shielded by their identities – which protect individuals and so are, in a way, anonymous - diverse responses to changing contexts are developed and communicated, breathing new life into stagnant social ideas (Meikle, 2002, p. 119).

Context of tactical media: creative and/or subversive uses of communication technology by those who don’t normally have access.

The internet has given ordinary citizens a platform through which they can communicate ideas to mass and global audiences. Prior to the development of the internet as a communication medium, media professionals who are undeniably influenced by specific industry agendas, were the only people with access to traditional communication portals like newspapers and radio (Meikle, 2002, p. 129).

MASS COMMUNICATION BECOMES ACCESSIBLE TO ALL CITIZENS THROUGH THE ADVENT OF THE ONLINE COMMUNICATION PORTAL.  

Tactics exploit contexts and time: moments and opportunities that allow for cultural/social commentary.

Viral pieces/ideas are passed around by people. This only occurs if the message fits into ongoing debates and conversations held in communities, or in other words – if it is topical and interesting (Jenkins, 2009). 

If a concept is to survive, it must be easily appropriated and reworked by a range of different people in different contexts. This can be pursued through guerrilla media campaigns which disseminate information

Anonymity is a concept that is applicable to many online users in different settings. In countries where civil freedoms aren’t always supported – Saudi Arabia for example - anonymity provides a platform for expression.  Participation is facilitated through anonymity and this is what gives the concept longevity and importance: it gives the voiceless a voice.

Some additional links to sites concerned with anonymity and blogging/cyber users:

The Coming Out Stories of Anonymous Bloggers 

The Culture Jammer's Encyclopedia

EFF: defending your rights in the digital world