"People Are Either Too Fake or Too Real": Opportunities and Challenges in Tie-Based Anonymity

In recent years, several mobile applications allowed individuals to anonymously share information with friends and contacts, without any persistent identity marker. The functions of these "tie-based" anonymity services may be notably different than other social media services. We use semi-structured interviews to qualitatively examine motivations, practices and perceptions in two tie-based anonymity apps: Secret (now defunct, in the US) and Mimi (in China). Among the findings, we show that: (1) while users are more comfortable in self-disclosure, they still have specific practices and strategies to avoid or allow identification; (2) attempts for deidentification of others are prevalent and often elaborate; and (3) participants come to expect both negativity and support in response to posts. Our findings highlight unique opportunities and potential benefits for tie-based anonymity apps, including serving disclosure needs and social probing. Still, challenges for making such applications successful, for example the prevalence of negativity and bullying, are substantial.

[1]  James W. Pennebaker,et al.  Opening up : the healing power of expressing emotions , 1990 .

[2]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Rumor and Gossip Research , 2005 .

[3]  Douglas A. Gentile,et al.  Attacking others online: The formation of cyberbullying in late adolescence. , 2012 .

[4]  T. Postmes,et al.  The Formation of Group Norms in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2000 .

[5]  Debra Lauterbach,et al.  It's not that i don't have problems, i'm just not putting them on facebook: challenges and opportunities in using online social networks for health , 2011, CSCW.

[6]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the "true self" on the Internet. , 2002 .

[7]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  Why do people seek anonymity on the internet?: informing policy and design , 2013, CHI.

[8]  Lois Ann Scheidt,et al.  It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens , 2015, New Media Soc..

[9]  Paul Resnick,et al.  Slash(dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space , 2004, CHI.

[10]  May McCreaddie,et al.  Humour and laughter , 2018, The Handbook of Communication Skills.

[11]  Anne Bowser,et al.  Online Inspiration and Exploration for Identity Reinvention , 2015, CHI.

[12]  W. Pearce,et al.  Self-disclosing communication. , 1973, The Journal of communication.

[13]  Ralph L. Rosnow,et al.  Rumor as Communication: A Contextualist Approach. , 1988 .

[14]  Jina Huh,et al.  Tackling dilemmas in supporting 'the whole person' in online patient communities , 2012, CHI.

[15]  Sally Yerkovich,et al.  Gossiping as a Way of Speaking , 1977 .

[16]  J. Suler The Online Disinhibition Effect , 2004, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.

[17]  Xiao Ma,et al.  Anonymity, Intimacy and Self-Disclosure in Social Media , 2016, CHI.

[18]  Dragomir R. Radev,et al.  Rumor has it: Identifying Misinformation in Microblogs , 2011, EMNLP.

[19]  Judith Donath,et al.  Identity and deception in the virtual community , 1998 .

[20]  Keith W. Ross,et al.  "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog": a twitter case study of anonymity in social networks , 2014, COSN '14.

[21]  Matthew Trammell User investment and behavior policing on 4chan , 2014, First Monday.

[22]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  4chan and /b/: An Analysis of Anonymity and Ephemerality in a Large Online Community , 2011, ICWSM.

[23]  R. L. Rosnow Rumor and gossip in interpersonal interaction and beyond: A social exchange perspective. , 2001 .

[24]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  Follow the (slash) dot: effects of feedback on new members in an online community , 2005, GROUP.

[25]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Deception and design: the impact of communication technology on lying behavior , 2004, CHI.

[26]  William B. Stiles,et al.  I Have to Talk to Somebody , 1987 .

[27]  Azy Barak,et al.  Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[28]  R. Baumeister,et al.  The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[29]  J. Omarzu A Disclosure Decision Model: Determining How and When Individuals Will Self-Disclose , 2000 .

[30]  Nazanin Andalibi,et al.  Sensitive Self-disclosures, Responses, and Social Support on Instagram: The Case of #Depression , 2017, CSCW.

[31]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  “The Question Exists, but You Don’t Exist With It”: Strategic Anonymity in the Social Lives of Adolescents , 2016 .

[32]  Erin E. Hollenbaugh,et al.  The Effects of Anonymity on Self-Disclosure in Blogs: An Application of the Online Disinhibition Effect , 2013, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[33]  R. Paine What is Gossip About? An Alternative Hypothesis , 1967 .

[34]  Munmun De Choudhury,et al.  Understanding Social Media Disclosures of Sexual Abuse Through the Lenses of Support Seeking and Anonymity , 2016, CHI.

[35]  Jina Huh,et al.  Clinical Questions in Online Health Communities: The Case of "See your doctor" Threads , 2015, CSCW.

[36]  John M. Levine,et al.  To stay or leave?: the relationship of emotional and informational support to commitment in online health support groups , 2012, CSCW.

[37]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  Empathic communities: balancing emotional and factual communication , 1999, Interact. Comput..

[38]  Jeremy P. Birnholtz,et al.  "Is it Weird to Still Be a Virgin": Anonymous, Locally Targeted Questions on Facebook Confession Boards , 2015, CHI.

[39]  Christopher P. Barlett,et al.  Predicting Cyberbullying From Anonymity. , 2014 .

[40]  S. Turkle Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet , 1997 .

[41]  A. Strauss,et al.  Grounded Theory in Practice , 1997 .

[42]  Kathleen D. Vohs,et al.  Gossip as Cultural Learning , 2004 .

[43]  J. Walther Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[44]  Louise Barkhuus,et al.  Student socialization in the age of facebook , 2010, CHI.

[45]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  The Many Shades of Anonymity: Characterizing Anonymous Social Media Content , 2021, ICWSM.

[46]  Natalya N. Bazarova,et al.  Self‐Disclosure in Social Media: Extending the Functional Approach to Disclosure Motivations and Characteristics on Social Network Sites , 2014 .

[47]  L. Miller,et al.  Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[48]  M. Gluckman,et al.  Papers in Honor of Melville J. Herskovits: Gossip and Scandal , 1963, Current Anthropology.

[49]  Jennifer D. Shapka,et al.  The changing face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and victimization , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[50]  Alex Leavitt,et al.  "This is a Throwaway Account": Temporary Technical Identities and Perceptions of Anonymity in a Massive Online Community , 2015, CSCW.

[51]  Rachel Greenstadt,et al.  Privacy, Anonymity, and Perceived Risk in Open Collaboration: A Study of Tor Users and Wikipedians , 2017, CSCW.

[52]  Kathryn Greene,et al.  Self-Disclosure and Starting a Close Relationship , 1997 .

[53]  Natalya N. Bazarova Public Intimacy: Disclosure Interpretation and Social Judgments on Facebook , 2012 .

[54]  Laura A. Dabbish,et al.  Strangers on Your Phone: Why People Use Anonymous Communication Applications , 2016, CSCW.

[55]  Lee Knuttila,et al.  User unknown: 4chan, anonymity and contingency , 2011, First Monday.

[56]  Alice E. Marwick,et al.  The Drama! Teen Conflict, Gossip, and Bullying in Networked Publics , 2011 .

[57]  Mor Naaman,et al.  Practices of information and secrecy in a punk rock subculture , 2012, CSCW.

[58]  Ben Y. Zhao,et al.  Whispers in the dark: analysis of an anonymous social network , 2014, Internet Measurement Conference.

[59]  E. Goffman The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[60]  Owen Hargie Humour and laughter , 2006 .

[61]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of Interactive Media , 1987 .