systemic reality. Most Internet identities are avatars for whom reciprocity
is not possible. For reciprocity to be successful there has to be some sense
of obligation to communicate which has a socially organized basis. Except
for mirror sites on the Web, and Internet email use, none of the sub-media
of the Internet provide a stable environment for relations of trust to
develop between users, or between users and information. For example,
on the World Wide Web, the phenomenon of bit-rot has even deterred
authors and analysts of cyberspace from print-publishing URLS from
websites (see Lunenfeld, 1999: 237). In CMC Net sub-media, avatars are
not accountable or responsible to each other except insofar as they apply
pre-given norms from the off-line world. But to do this is precisely contrary
to what an avatar is.
To appreciate this we need to distinguish between communication on
the Internet between interlocutors who have a prior face-to-face or insti-
tutional association and those who are anonymous to each other. In the
former circumstance, Internet communication is largely an affair of the
conduit and vessel. It may be simply a more efficient or instrumental
means of sending messages to those who are already known.
However, a large part of Internet use is between individuals who do
not know each other from other contexts, even institutional contexts.
A great deal of interaction takes place mediated by a computer-generated
infrastructure, but the obligation of reciprocity does not exist. Reciprocity
requires an identification of interactants in order for an exchange to be
rendered mutually. The proof of the distinctive consequences of anony-
mous communication on the Internet can be seen in the fact that it is con-
sidered necessary to have ‘policies’ to deal with such problems (Kling
et al., 2000). Such policies are not required in broadcast mediums. As Kling
et al. argue: ‘While many people believe that anonymous communication
on the Internet is not only acceptable but has positive value, others see
risk in it because anonymous users are not accountable for their behaviour.
Consequently, anonymity can mask or even encourage criminal or anti-
social behaviour’^15 (98). To remedy this perceived problem, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS) Program in
Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law held a conference in 1997 to
‘better understand the nuances of anonymous communication on the
internet and develop ideas that could guide policy development in this
area’ (Kling et al., 2000: 98). Four major principles were advanced as
providing a guiding role in policy development:- Anonymous communication on-line is morally neutral.
- Anonymous communication should be regarded as a strong human
right; in the United States it is also a constitutional right. - On-line communities should be allowed to set their own policies
regarding the use of anonymous communication. - Individuals should be informed about the extent to which their iden-
tity is disclosed on-line (Kling et al., 2000: 99–101).
150 COMMUNICATION THEORYHolmes-05.qxd 2/15/2005 1:00 PM Page 150