[anigbrowl]

Anonymity is a poor heuristic. I rate people as trolls or not dependin gon whether they employ fallacious reasoning, and how they respond to being challenged. Not all fallacious arguments are trolling, as people can simply be wrong. But if a person is supplied with accurate information, or the form of an error explained and acknowledged, only to see them return the next day with the same schtick, then I regard that as posting in bad faith.

There are plenty of anonymous truth-tellers and plenty overt hypocrites and liars. It's important to remember that not all lies are meant to be believed; some are merely intended to upset, to bait, or to signal.

[vintermann]

The problem isn't anonymity as such. I don't think there would be much problem with anonymous posts, provided we could be confident the anonymous poster actually was just one guy who spoke for himself, at a reasonable rate.

But you have anonymous posters who speak under hundreds of names to give their opinions the illusion of popularity; argue with their own accounts to set up straw men and steer discussion away from things that threaten them, and post hundreds of times more than the average users.

I think there must be solutions to this, I'm sad so few people seem to be working on it. Shouldn't there be a way for instance, using good old fashioned cryptography (I.e. NOT some tradeable token junk), to leverage a strong ID service to prevent sockpuppeting in a forum without revealing much to either the forum owner or the ID service?

Once we had that - a basic safety that everyone you engaged with on a certain forum was a real person, and this person (whoever he was) didn't operate under other names on that forum (or if he had earlier names, that they were irreversibly retired) - a lot of sensible things would become possible which are largely pointless today, such as speaking limits and distributed/allotted moderation.

[ggm]

> Not all fallacious arguments are trolling, as people can simply be wrong.

There's factually wrong, there's logically fallacious argument, and there's "I don't agree with you, so I will say you're wrong, and be condescending to impute your reasoning, but actually, I'm not the teacher, or the font of wisdom" wrong.

Yes, people can simply be wrong. Lincoln didn't write internet jokes online. But, oftentimes, "wrong" is actually "I don't agree with you, but saying you're wrong is more win"

I tend to all three (factually, logical reasoning error, and opinion) wrongs. So I'm used to seeing all three flung back at me. There. Flung. thats emotive. Probably casts (ha) things in to a specific mode of reasoning...

[mistermann]

> But if a person is supplied with accurate information

Unfortunately, this is often a matter of opinion, but not perceived as such, often completely sincerely.