Anonymity in Deliberative Spaces on the Internet: Diversity, Conflict and Conformity

Disagreement and diversity posit both an ideal and a problem in deliberative democratic theory. On the one hand, deliberative democracy relies on a multiplicity of opinions and perspectives which facilitate democratic pluralism and mutual learning. On the other hand, this diversity of opinions represents an obstacle to consensus finding – the goal of deliberative processes. This paper investigates how anonymity in deliberative spaces on the internet affects both positive and negative aspects of disagreement and diversity. A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of more than 60 different empirical studies, most of which experiments, shows how anonymity amplifies the effects of disagreement and diversity in comparison to identified deliberation. Findings show that online anonymity serves democracy by allowing for a greater diversity of views and the construction of alternative identities which challenge hegemonic discourses. Moreover, anonymity affords opinion change without “losing face” which contributes to consensus finding. On the negative side, however, disagreement under the condition of anonymity is often uttered in an uncivil and hurtful manner. Furthermore, anonymity appears to amplify conformist tendencies as participants blend in and follow group leaders. This large-scale comparison of different studies allows for the analysis of design features contributing to democratic and anti-democratic outcomes. Thus, this paper explores how anonymity can contribute to rather than inhibit inclusive deliberation.