Online anonymity: study found ‘stable pseudonyms’ created a more civil environment than real user names
'What matters, it seems, is not so much whether you are commenting anonymously, but whether you are invested in your persona and accountable for its behaviour in that particular forum. There seems to be value in enabling people to speak on forums without their comments being connected, via their real names, to other contexts.
...calls to end anonymity online by forcing people to reveal their real identities might not have the effects people expect'
@mia It will have the wrong effect. It's been shown that real names on the World of Warcraft forum changed very little, and that, might actually spill easily IRL if you get people to stop giving a crap about protecting their real identities
I always wonder if these same people who think you should use your real name online also wear their drivers license as a T-shirt so everyone everywhere they go can see who they are.
Seems like walking around in a bad neighborhood screaming "OH WOW MY WALLET IS SO FULL OF MONEY RIGHT NOW!"
@coolboymew@mia It didn't fix news sites. They tried mandatory real name policies, but that didn't work so they decided to just get rid of commenting all together.
@coolboymew@mia Speaking of which, I miss when blogs and other sites allowed you to comment without an account. Even Blogger/Blogspot had an option to comment completely anonymously. Now, people think that that kind of practice just leads to imageboard culture when that has never been the case from my experience.
@coolboymew@mia i find forced walletnames tend to amplify only the sort of people who are so secure in their irl workplace that they have nothing to lose no matter how rancid their posts are
which means
(a) small business owners whose clientele are like-minded people
(b) absolutely irredeemable p-zombie corporate drones (public or private sector, i use the term loosely) who have nothing to say but the corporate party line anyway
@coolboymew@mia it's almost designed (and in some implementations probably is designed) to silence any sort of whistleblower, dissenter or other nonconforming person (voluntarily so or not) who isn't just "rebelling" against one large faction in order to advance the cause of another comparably large one
@dl2jml I guess that's a question for the study authors, but it's worth considering. I've been shocked though at what people will post under their FB accounts - wishing death on asylum seekers etc, so it'd be interesting to consider who's more silent under a 'real name' policy
@mia You cannot discard the fact that some FB members are simply crazy or complete idiots, but there may be another explanation behind some of these posts: social pressure. If your relatives are against immigration, you will not welcome immigrants on FB. Same story in reverse if your relatives are in favor of immigration, of course.
That same pressure will cause people to be more silent, which is what I was talking about. You don't get comments from some of the users. (1/2)
@mia But they are not the same people. I can imagine that people with extreme comments under their real name are responding to social pressure by trying to increase their standing or reach in their group. When people use their real names, the online world mimics the dynamic of established offline groups (which have been amply studied). These dynamics can be messy and violent. (2/2).
@mia interesting! I go back and forth on whether or not I want to keep my real name out there. But I guess at this point I’ve written and published online for long enough that it may be too late.
Add comment