| > potentially thoughtful commenters who don’t want to become targets I almost never discuss politics, philosophy, important personal subjects or really anything of substance on Facebook. It's become purely for staking a tether to a few hundred key individuals I want to keep track of but don't need/want to talk to more than very rarely. Most of these contacts are not close friends or people I see any point in arguing with (especially after seeing the content of the most prolific posters). Do you remember when Google actually encouraged people to use anonymous user names? [What a 180 they did!] This was the default, established early on, for good reason. It is a true democratizer, casting aside all to distinguish anyone but their words and/or choice of posts. With one stroke, it eliminates racism, sexism, ableism, name recognition bias, fashion snobbery and all other means of discrimination by appearance or public life. It also raises the bar for one to be taken seriously, as anything you say can be fact-checked immediately. The cult of personality infecting user representation on the internet has been a tragedy to watch unfold. People would rather copy and paste words (usually out of context) from someone on a pedestal to glorify or vilify than take the extra step of vetting or responding meaningfully to what they say. I guess I should have expected it, but it's still hard not to be disappointed. TL;DR edit-- I meandered a bit, sorry. My point is that user anonymity results in a more level playing field for discourse. Certain discussions of substance benefit greatly from this. In the world of real names, ad hominem attacks or hero worship all too easily derail productive debate. This can happen in anonymous forums as well, but from my experience it's much better corrected for in those places. |