Anonymity and Disclosure in Blogs

What role(s) can self-disclosure play in the relationship between bloggers and their audiences?
In informal forums (fora?), self disclosure, i.e. the revealing of information about oneself and one's views, would assist with credibility. Readers would feel that the writer is exposing him/herself to criticism and by taking that risk, is deserving of more attention. In formal or academic situations, self-disclosure would often be quite inappropriate and maybe unprofessional.

What did you think of the finding that bloggers feel most anonymous when the target audience is not one that the blogger knows offline?
I regard this finding as intuitively correct. When an audience knows the blogger personally, then that audience would have a greater chance of identifying the anonymous blogger from his language and views even when the blogger did not intend it.

What did you think about the study's finding that more bloggers were worried about their families reading their blogs (23%) than possible career damage (8%)?
That's an interesting finding, but it may be just a reflection of the sample, which was predominantly young people and students.

The study found that 43% of bloggers deal with their concerns over self-disclosure by self-imposed censorship. The author of a new book on the persistence of online information, Viktor Mayer-Schonberger, argues that this kind of self-censorship stifles us. Do you agree?
I suppose it stifles us to some extent, but my inclination is to think that exposure to criticism and derision mostly causes bloggers to be more careful about accuracy and truth than they might otherwise be. Fanatics and bigots seem to be oblivious to this anyway - online bloggers and print journalists are equally capable of lies, bias and the selective use of data, when it suits them.

The authors argue that "the name "personal journal" is inaccurate and calls for revision, as many bloggers do not share their true feelings and thoughts. [...] When it comes to self-disclosure, it seems that they are cautious so as to avoid potential backlash." Do you agree?
Most bloggers would regard their material as more open to public scrutiny than their personal diary would be, no matter what the privacy settings. I agree that most people would have this in the back of their mind when blogging. The research suggests that true self-disclosure is proportional to the degree of discursive anonymity. The truth is that hard copy diaries are not that much more secure than private blogs - they can be read by family and friends, even after death, and they can be stolen.

Research methodology: was the study concerned conducted in such a way that you have faith in its results? Can you see any ways in which the results might have been biased? Was the research carried out in an ethical way?
The sample size was not great, but more importantly, the participants self-selected themselves. In this type of research, there is hardly an alternative, but self-selection invites biased participation and can lead to skewed results. I can't see anything unethical about the research.

Did you agree with the interpretation of the study's results?
My only comment here is that collapsing the categories to measure the interaction between parameters seemed simplistic, especially since the categories were not clearly mutually exclusive, but I'm not an expert in this field.

Is the study still relevant today? Are there aspects of it that need to be updated?
Given the evolution and rapid growth of blogging and social networking since 2005, the topic is more relevant than ever before, but these results would be obsolete. If the subject matter was deemed important (I'm not sure that it is), then a larger study would be warranted.

Sky's Questions on Internet Footprint

How important is 'netiquette' in our presentation of self online? Why do you think this?
I believe it to be very important. Failure to follow the norms and good practices of the relevant plaform diminishes your reputation amongst other users of the platform, and possibly causes inconvenience. Just as a trivial example, I retain emails as a "filing system" for a long period of time. When correspondents don't give good subject names, or none at all, it makes to much more difficult to find things later. Not following the implied norms leads to outbreaks of pedantry and wastes time.


What does your own Internet footprint look like at the moment?
My footprint is pretty light, because I don't engage in social networking, I've not been a prolific publisher of papers, and I'm not in the public eye. Last time I Googled my name, almost everything I found was not relevant to me. The one exception was the minutes of a community meeting I attended.

Did you try out the MIT personas installation? Were you surprised by the results? What does this tell you about the efficacy of data-mining?
Yes, I did try it out. Wasn't surprised by the results because I have a little experience with data mining and I know that imprecise data going in will yield wildly incorrect patterns and relationships. Data mining is a valid technique when sensible questions are asked and applied to relevant data.

Do you think carefully about what identity you want to present online?
Yes indeed, which is probably why my footprint is as if I've been walking on hard concrete.

Do you use an avatar online? If you do, why did you pick that avatar?
For the purpose of NET11, I have created an avatar. It is a rendering of a photograph of me, designed to "be me but not identify me". I have used this technique in some of my image manipulation work.

Do you agree that the presentation of identity has become technologised? What effects do you think this is having on us as individuals and as a society (or societies)?
I do agree with that proposition, but only for a particular (but very large and growing) demographic, mostly based on age. I had dinner last night with a group of people who (because I'm doing this unit) I surveyed on the subject. Most did not know what I was talking about! My adult son and a young woman at the dinner have a lesser online presence than I do, much to their amazement.

But (to get to the second part of the question) it seems that teenagers and young adults, as a group, are highly obsessed with their identity as revealed/displayed on their SNS of choice. By my observations, the people in this group are fairly open / honest in their online presence, and use it as a means of innocent (if banal) communication. I perceive that young people naively believe that their parents are unaware of their online activities.


Are there cues or keys that you consistently look for in dealing with people online. What are they? Why are they important? Why are they important online?
Yes, and I'm sure that I read more cues than I am aware of. Important cues to me are spelling and grammar in textual information, and in the selection of themes, images etc. Impressions count, and these cues tell me a lot about people that I am dealing with. When I know the individuals, these cues are a lot less important, but can still influence me.

Do you agree that social media is a fundamental shift in how we communicate?
Yes indeed, but again it depends on who "we" are. Newspapers and faxes, and even landline 'phones and email, have been subsumed by mobile phones and SNSs amongst the iGen demographic.

How actively do you 'read' others' profiles online? Do you look for clues as to who other Internet users are in their online content?
Not actively at all, I take my cues as they are presented to me. I'll look for more when I think I need it.