The document discusses issues related to online identity and anonymity. It notes that online identities can take many forms, from personal brands to anonymous trolls. Anonymity on the internet allows people to say things without consequences but can also bring out selfish and bullying behaviors. The document uses examples from online comments on a campus newspaper article to illustrate issues of ethos, logos, and pathos in online rhetoric and arguments where anonymity is a factor.

1. Digital Rhetoric
11/6/14

2. Calling an Audible
We will do our commercial discussion on
Tuesday of next week, but something happened
this week that reminded me of a topic we didn’t
really touch on in class that is important to
understanding internet discourse (we briefly
encountered it in some of the early readings):
the problems caused by anonymity.

3. Identity Online: Fluid and Disconnected
We will talk more about identity issues next
week in relation to gaming. What I want to point
out here is the obvious but sometimes
overlooked part of online identity: you build it
and people come to see it (sort of like Kevin
Costner’s baseball field).
It has no reference in “real”– remember
Baudrillard?

4. Because of the lack of “real”…
… online identities have varied values.
There’s those that are “brands” for people. Those
are, of course, of tremendous value. Think of a
Perez Hilton (of a Dr. Phill :P). To undermine those
personalities does damage to the owners.
There are some that are “just me,” for the user. The
owner doesn’t see them as separate from the
“real,” but because of their use, these identities
aren’t fleshed out. Like ColtsGuyPhill, poster at the
Colts.com message boards circa 2004.

5. Because of the lack of “real” II…
There are those that are purposefully deceptive,
attempting to borrow ethos (or cause chaos) by
“pretending” to be someone else (which is why
so many people’s twitter handles are
“therealwhoever” and not just “whoever”
And, lastly…

6. Because of the lack of “real” III…
There are trolls (or flamers).
What’s a troll?
Hint: they don’t live under bridges. Usually.

7. A troll is someone who enters online discussion specifically to be
abusive or obnoxious. Think of a bully without a physical body.
These are people who are contrary and often behave in ways that
could be characterized as childish or juvenile.
Some, however, are highly sophisticated.
Their goal, however, is not to be real.
Their goal is also not to be good members of the community, or to
be kind.
Their goal is to cause problems.

8. Trolling is amplified by…
…anonymity.
There’s a great deal of research that talks about
what anonymity on the internet results in, but
most of it boils down to a few key points.
Next slide.

9. Anonymity on the ‘net
1) Anonymity can be democratic, as it eliminates
first impressions
2) However it usually isn’t, as the lack of a “face,”
and not seeing people, emboldens the selfish
aspects of humanity and draws out the inner
bully
3) This is true for people who are bullies by nature,
but it’s also true for those who have been
bullied; seeing the chance to assume the other
role without consequences can lead to
experimentation

10. “Lack of consequences”
The root problem of anonymity is the lack of
direct consequences. When one can say
whatever one wants with impunity, the results
can be tragic.
This is true even when a person is being honest
and authentic, as (SPOILER ALERT) sometimes
good hearted people with the best intentions
lie.

11. The distance to here…
… all of that was a lead-up to get us to this
particular moment. I want you to read a letter-to-the-
editor from our campus newspaper along with
the comments in response.
The piece is here:
http://miamistudent.net/?p=17002763
There’s also a link on the course site under this
PowerPoint.

12. What is of interest here…
We can, and I believe in the process of
discussing it, we will, talk about the actual
content of this piece (and your opinions on it),
but what I want you to notice is the same thing I
asked you about the Beck/Stewart stuff last
week. The rhetorical importance lies in actual
rhetorical analysis (not in pre-held beliefs about
the topic).
So rhetorically, what do we see?

13. If no one is talking, big hint:
WHAT WERE ALL THE SLIDES BEFORE WE
STOPPED TO READ ABOUT?
*wink*

14. For a moment…
… if we take the author(s) of the letter and each
response at their word, what sort of ethos are
we seeing here?
How about our friend logos?
And their sadistic, loud friend pathos?

15. For a moment…
What is the argument?
What claims are made?
Are they warranted (supported)?
What remedies have been attempted?

16. Is anyone here…
Are any of these cases effective?
Okay… I know some of you might be dying to, so
if you’d like, let’s discuss the actual topic. I’m
going to play Devil’s Advocate, so don’t be
surprised if I say something odd in response to
you; I’m not worried about sharing my own view
but rather about making you think about
whatever position you might take.

17. With the remaining time
I want you to write your MAP project proposals
now (or start them, at least) so that no one
forgets to turn one in.
On the next slide are 5 questions you need to
answer about the project. You can answer them
any way you like: numbered list, paragraph
form, clever poem, awesome image collage.
Then email it to me.

18. MAP proposal
1) What is your “thesis”? (bear in mind it might not
appear word-for-word in the project, but you
should be able to give me a one sentence
topic/argument)
2) What form will this project take?
3) What resources are you going to need/will you
need to collect?
4) What don’t you know now that you need to
learn to complete the project?
5) What questions do you have for me?

19. On Tuesday
We’re going to double-dip.
We’ll start by doing the commercial stuff we
didn’t get to today. We will then talk about
scripting/story-boarding by disassembling one
of the commercials as a model.
Come in with any questions you have about
Audacity.