[bikenaga]

Related to this question, there was a study done a few years ago to assess the effect of "real names" vs. pseudonyms on the online community:

"Online anonymity: study found ‘stable pseudonyms’ created a more civil environment than real user names" - https://theconversation.com/online-anonymity-study-found-sta...

They looked at an online community which moved from "easy anonymity" to "registered pseudonyms" to IDs linked to Facebook names/avatars (which they took as a proxy for "real names"). They found:

"Our results suggest that the quality of comments was highest in the middle phase. There was a great improvement after the shift from easy or disposable anonymity to what we call 'durable pseudonyms'. But instead of improving further after the shift to the real-name phase, the quality of comments actually got worse – not as bad as in the first phase, but still worse by our measure."

"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. The online comment management company Disqus, in a similar vein, found that comments made under conditions of durable pseudonymity were rated by other users as having the highest quality."

[wakawaka28]

It's civil until some insane jerk shows up at your house and smashes all your windows (or worse) because you didn't like their opinion.