Fb Anonymous Profile Info

| Motivation | % of Interviewees (N=25) | Example Quote | |------------|--------------------------|----------------| | Privacy & surveillance avoidance | 88% | “I don’t want employers or my family seeing my mental health posts.” (P7, 32, female) | | Expression of stigmatized views | 72% | “I’m queer in a conservative town. My real name would get me harassed.” (P12, 21, non-binary) | | Trolling or entertainment | 40% | “Sometimes I just want to argue without it ruining my reputation.” (P19, 24, male) |

Content analysis revealed that anonymous Facebook groups often develop internal norms, such as tagging posts with “#serious” to discourage trolling. However, 20% of observed comment threads contained personal attacks, compared to 4% in comparable real-name groups. 5.1 The Anonymity Paradox The findings support the “online disinhibition effect” (Suler, 2004) but add a nuanced layer: users do not behave uniformly across contexts. Most participants engaged in what we term strategic disinhibition —consciously choosing when and where to reveal their anonymous identity. This suggests a sophisticated understanding of Facebook’s affordances. fb anonymous profile

Anonymity, Facebook, social media, digital identity, privacy, online behavior 1. Introduction Since its launch in 2004, Facebook has championed a “real-name” culture, arguing that authentic identities foster accountability, trust, and safer online communities. However, a growing counter-trend has emerged: the proliferation of anonymous or pseudonymous profiles. These accounts—often bearing fictional names, generic images, or thematic handles—operate within Facebook’s ecosystem despite official policies against impersonation. This paper asks: What drives individuals to create anonymous Facebook profiles? How do they use these identities differently from their real-name accounts? And what are the broader social consequences? | Motivation | % of Interviewees (N=25) |

Anonymous profiles enable critical speech for vulnerable populations. One participant (P3) used an anonymous account to report workplace harassment without fear of retaliation. Conversely, the same tools enable coordinated harassment campaigns (e.g., “brigading” of local community pages). Notably, 44% of survey respondents had received abusive messages from an anonymous account, yet 68% said they would oppose a total ban on anonymity. “brigading” of local community pages). Notably