[kjkjadksj]

On the other hand I think the best social media out there today is 4chan. Entirely anonymous. Also, the crass humor and nsfw boards act as a great filter to keep out advertising bot networks from polluting the site like it did with reddit. No one one wants to advertise on 4chan or have their brand associated with it, which is great for quality discussion on technical topics and niche interests.

[dom96]

4chan is actually one of the worst social media out there. They are responsible for a hell of a lot of hate campaigns out there. Anonymity breeds toxicity.

[AnthonyMouse]

Anonymity breeds veracity. As soon as you force people to identify themselves they start lying to you whenever the truth would be controversial. They refuse to concede when someone proves them wrong because now they're under pressure to save face. It's why Facebook's real name policy causes the place to be so toxic.

[drawkward]

This is such a weird take. Anonymity lets people behave with impunity.

[AnthonyMouse]

Anonymity lets people speak with impunity, which is precisely what allows them to say true things they would otherwise be deterred from saying.

They could also say false things, but unverifiable claims from an anonymous source have no credibility.

[drawkward]

Obviously, the impunity also allows them to say false things they would otherwise be deterred from saying. Why would you assume the impunity leads to more truth and not more lies?

[AnthonyMouse]

There are three relevant types of statements: Logical arguments, independently verifiable factual claims and unverifiable factual claims.

Logical arguments stand on their own merits. Whether they're convincing or not depends on whether you can find holes in them, not on who offers them. Presenting weak arguments is low value because they're not convincing. But anonymity allows people to present strong arguments that they would otherwise be punished for presenting, not because they're untrue but because they're inconvenient.

Independently verifiable factual claims are the same. You don't have to believe the author because all they're telling you is that you can find something relevant in a particular document or clip and then you can see for yourself if it's there or not. But anonymity protects them from being punished for telling people about it.

Unverifiable factual claims are an appeal to authority, which requires you to be an authority -- it's a mechanism authorities use to lie to people -- which is incompatible with anonymity. If you anonymously claim something nobody can check then you have no credibility.

So anonymity enables people to say verifiably true things they would otherwise be punished for bringing to public attention, but is less effective for lying than saying the lies under an official identity because there is no authority from which to lend credibility to unverifiable claims.

[dom96]

It really doesn’t. Anonymous people are far more likely to lie, obscure facts and mislead to make you support whatever cause they want to strengthen.

[AnthonyMouse]

People do exactly that under their real names. If anything they do it more as a form of virtue signaling because they have to be seen supporting their tribe's causes.