The Value of Anonymity on the Internet

  • Dongwon Lim
  • Hangjung Zo
  • Dukhee Lee
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6629)


As anonymity has both positive and negative effects at the same time, it is arguable whether or not anonymity is worth preserving. However, there are few studies that seek to clarify the effects of anonymity on the society as a whole by integrating individual behaviors and macroscopic models.We propose an opinion diffusion model that introduces a ‘conviction’ dimension to represent behaviors of an anonymous agent,and investigate the way anonymity can affect the society using simulation method. Results indicate that anonymity is more effective in a society with a higher similarity threshold. In addition, increasing anonymity resulted in increasing the time to reach consensus and increasing the number of agents in the biggest cluster.


anonymity opinion dynamics agent-based model privacy Internet 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Afshar, M., Asadpour, M.: Opinion Formation by Informed Agents. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 13 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albert, M.R.: E-Buyer Beware: Why Online Auction Fraud Should Be Regulated. American Business Law Journal 39, 575–644 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aldashev, G., Carletti, T.: Benefits of Diversity, Communication Costs, and Public Opinion Dynamics. Complexity 15, 54–63 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Axelrod, R.: The Dissemination of Culture: A Model with Local Convergence and Global Polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41, 203–226 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balcetis, E., Dunning, D.: See What You Want to See: Motivational Influences on Visual Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, 612–625 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bochner, S., Insko, C.A.: Communicator Discrepancy, Source Credibility, and Opinion Change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4, 614–621 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brucks, M.: The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 12, 1–16 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christopherson, K.M.: The Positive and Negative Implications of Anonymity in Internet Social Interactions: ‘On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog’. Computers in Human Behavior 23, 3038–3056 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corritore, C.L., Kracher, B., Wiedenbeck, S.: On-line Trust: Concepts, Evolving Themes, a Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58, 737–758 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davenport, D.: Anonymity on the Internet: Why the Price Be Too High. Communications of the ACM 45, 33–36 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elliston, F.A.: Anonymity and Whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics 1, 167–177 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hofstede, G.: National Cultures in Four Dimensions. International Studies of Man and Organization 13, 46–74 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laguna, M.F., Abramson, G., Zanette, D.H.: Minorities in a Model for Opinion Formation. Complexity 9, 31–36 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lea, M., Spears, R., de Groot, D.: Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes within Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27, 526–537 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, E.J.: Deindividuation Effects on Group Polarization in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Group Identification, Public-Self-Awareness, and Perceived Argument Quality. Journal of Communication 57, 385–403 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mann, L.: The Baiting Crowd in Episodes of Threatened Suicide. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41, 703–709 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M.: Breaching or Building Social Boundaries?: SIDE-Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research 25, 689–715 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schlenker, B.R., Leary, M.R.: Social Anxiety and Self-Presentation: A Conceptualization and Model. Psychological Bulletin 92, 641–669 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suler, J.: The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology& Behavior 7, 321–326 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Teich, A., Frankel, M.S., Kling, R., Lee, Y.: Anonymous Communication Policies for the Internet: Results and Recommendations of the AAAS Conference. The Information Society 15, 71–77 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weisbuch, G., Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Nadal, J.P.: Meet, Discuss, and Segregate! Complexity 7, 55–63 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dongwon Lim
    • 1
  • Hangjung Zo
    • 1
  • Dukhee Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Management Science DepartmentKAISTDaejonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations