The anonymity I know

- Do you think we have better discussions because we don't have to use our real names?

- How would using real names affect the discussion here?

- Does the anonymity here go far enough? For example if someone manages to tie our real identity to our HN username their is no way of changing the HN username.

One big counterpoint to this I can see is ask.fm. People are given total anonymity and they use it to berate and bully others (I believe it's also lead to several suicides). Anonymity can work great if the community is good. Here on HN I think it works pretty well. On ask.fm it clearly worked horribly but only because the community using it used it that way.

In the end I think it's all down to the people using the service and anonymity or true identity plays only a very small role.

Edit: and the downsides of anonymity can been seen below in '784927489234's comment.

Now, imagine if everything they can say after they become "former" that position (so I'm not necessarily talking about leaking classified information here), could be said anonymously much earlier while they still have that job and know everything what's going on at the time.

Anonymity is powerful, and not just in oppressive countries where the usefulness of anonymity should be obvious, but also in countries where you may want to tell a "truth" about something, without fearing for your financial situation or your career.

Let's imagine Tim Cook had an opinion about what is going on between Palestine and Israel, and let's imagine it's a damn good one, since he's a pretty smart guy, and that opinion could even provide a big insight into the debate, and it would be very useful for the debate. I don't need to tell you that he wouldn't want to give that opinion under his real name on HN. That would create a media-firestorm, and could potentially get Apple, the company, in trouble, too, over his personal opinions.

I think these are just a few of the reasons why anonymity is important, and more should be explored. Anonymity is important for humanity, and it should never be killed or banned, whether by NSA or by companies like Google and Facebook.

Anonymity online can't fully be achieved except by a small few, but the positive benefits can be simulated for many by careful operators of BBS or internet forums.

This is the same tired "think-of-the-children" argument about reversed song lyrics played backwards, Ozzy Osbourne, foul language, and on and on, that the PMRC lobbied against, and used as a point to provoke the parental advisory album labeling in the 80's.

The term "cyber bullying" (which is new and different) is used incorrectly as a catch-all sometimes, but really, it should be reserved for a different form of pervasive harassment that follows the victim across many different scopes of internet and telecommunications access, where ignoring activity originating from one source (a single website, the victim's e-mail inbox, or the victim's telephone number) does not provide escape from disparaging remarks.

This is not the same as one website providing anonymity or even pseudonymity.

Yeah, children are inexperienced, and thin-skinned. They don't understand the risks of providing their real information on the internet, and and don't behave with the sophistication of those that do. There's lots of things on the internet that are not for kids. LOTS.

All the more reason to inform the inexperienced to AVOID revealing their honest real-life identity, rather than encouraging rubes to engage in promiscuous full-disclosure so that advertisers and ad-driven businesses can make a buck off of "unique" impressions.