The anonymity I know
chrishateswriting.com
The anonymity I know
1–10 of 126 posts
Re: The anonymity I know
#2I agree with every word. Of course I am incredibly biased because this is the kind of internet interaction that I prefer. It is just a different kind of internet culture and is obviously not for some people.
If you want every possible opinion on something whether it be the most popular opinions or the least popular opinion and everything in-between then anonymity is the way to go. Preferably without internet aliases for a true representation of unfiltered opinions.
Re: The anonymity I know
#3> I strongly disagree. What I’ve observed is the opposite—that anonymity facilitates honest discourse, creates a level playing field for ideas to be heard, and enables creativity like none other.
I think Chris makes a great counter-argument, however, isn't it possible that anonymity can breed both meanness and creativity? I don't mean just creatively-cruel-pranks, but that what anonymity breeds is dependent on the community, and to an extent, how that community is moderated. HackerNews allows anonymity, but I think it'd be a much different place for discussion if it weren't for the mod policies in effect.
Re: The anonymity I know
#4The conversation is “raw” to say the least—almost everyone checks their filter at the door. The resulting dialogue is about as honest as it gets. In lieu of traditional barriers to membership, the community uses cryptic and crude language to regulate who can and cannot participate. On the surface this may seem offensive, but it’s often meant to do little more than keep newcomers on their toes and encourage they lurk and learn the house rules before participating.
How can you have honest, unfiltered dialogue when there are barriers to entry and membership is regulated?
Hey moot, why are YouTube comments so bad? Clearly it's not just anonymity.
Re: The anonymity I know
#5On the one hand, I was an early BBS user, and there was a fair bit of benefit in anonymity or pseudonymity there.
On the other, when somebody says that he strongly disagrees with the notion that anonymity breeds meanness and his positive example is 4chan, I'm gobsmacked. We must have such different standards for what qualifies as meanness that I'm not sure we're the same species.
Re: The anonymity I know
#6I say this with hesitation but I believe that Snapchat, with all of its idiotic flaws is an indication of how the future of social networking platforms will be. It demonstrates that you can have a service where your friends are known but the content is seemingly temporary, allowing for some semblance of control.
I don't think that Snapchat is the future, but it does make me think that the ideas around it are what will make Facebook lost to younger generations.
Being anonymous is not important to most people. If it were, news website comments would be more palatable where real identities are required--far from the case.
Re: The anonymity I know
#7[deleted]
Re: The anonymity I know
#8> I strongly disagree. What I’ve observed is the opposite—that anonymity facilitates honest discourse, creates a level playing field for ideas to be heard, and enables creativity like none other. I think Chris makes a great counter-argument, however, isn't it possible that anonymity can breed both meanness and creativity? I don't mean just creatively-cruel-pranks, but that what anonymity breeds is dependent on the co…
Honest discourse means that you're able to express meanness, but it does not necessarily spawn that meanness from nothing.
Re: The anonymity I know
#9On the one hand, I was an early BBS user, and there was a fair bit of benefit in anonymity or pseudonymity there. On the other, when somebody says that he strongly disagrees with the notion that anonymity breeds meanness and his positive example is 4chan , I'm gobsmacked. We must have such different standards for what qualifies as meanness that I'm not sure we're the same species.
I agree that in some sense it doesn't make sense and people from 4chan probably do have a drastically different standard for what is actually mean. I'm sure for most people on 4chan you don't really consider anything mean. It doesn't matter what anyone says to you because who cares. The thread dies and that's the end of that.
You also have to remember though that most of 4chan is not /b/. It gives a misleading representation to the majority of the site.
Re: The anonymity I know
#10> I strongly disagree. What I’ve observed is the opposite—that anonymity facilitates honest discourse, creates a level playing field for ideas to be heard, and enables creativity like none other. I think Chris makes a great counter-argument, however, isn't it possible that anonymity can breed both meanness and creativity? I don't mean just creatively-cruel-pranks, but that what anonymity breeds is dependent on the co…
Yes. Healthy communities, real or virtual, self-regulate through social feedback loops. Requiring real names activates those social feedback loops in a way that is very handy from the perspective of people designing communities.
If you're going to have anonymity, you need to find a workable substitute. Early BBSes were often pseudonymous, but they were also gardens carefully tended by their operators. HN's self-moderation and karma tracking provide a similar effect here. Quora has a functional mix of mostly real names with optional anonymity on a per-post basis plus user voting and heavy moderation to enforce a "be nice, be respectful" tone.
Another good example is John Scalzi, who moderates his blog comments using the "Mallet of Loving Correction". His comment policy is a great example, but it clearly takes a lot of thoughtful gardening on his part to keep a pseudonymous comments section from descending into something pretty ugly: http://whatever.scalzi.com/about/site-disclaimer-and-comment...