CASE ANALYSIS 1: Facebook
Q1: Which of the following two positions do you agree with most: communication on the Internet should be made more anonymous, or communication on the Internet should be made more identifiable? Which of the following two positions do you agree with most: communication on the Internet should be made more anonymous, or communication on the Internet should be made more identifiable?
This is a very tough question because I feel as if I can agree with both positions to some extent. However, the problem with these positions is that they are so vague. Anonymous communication can work in some cases, because it prevents other people on the Internet obtaining information about one and other. Nonetheless, via social networking sites such as Facebook, someone can communicate with another person regardless of whether they know who it is or not, unless the privacy settings are altered to the extreme. The call for anonymous communication is supported by the issues that revolve around identity thefts, privacy and money fraud, but with that being said, that same anonymity empowers individuals to rude, impolite, and uncivil behaviour, as mentioned in the Case.
If I had to choose between the two positions, then I’d towards the position that communication over the Internet should be made more identifiable. First of all, for social networking sites such as the one in study, the essence of its existence is for friends and family to remain in contact by sharing photos, updating their thoughts and browsing through one and other’s content. Therefore, people need to know that the Facebook site they’re on is a legitimate one, and that their friend/sibling etc. have actually set it up themselves. Moreover, “identifiable” is a rather subjective (vague) word and I would like to stress that if communication was made more identifiable, then the identities must be approved, information should be validated and their browsing should be monitored, which truly...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document