[return0]

I am prejudiced against people who use their real names when the website allows them to use a nickname: I automatically assume they will be uninteresting, their opinions sheepish and will always avoid confrontation or controversial ideas. I feel like they are always talking in the presence of their mother.

[bsamuels]

I have to agree with you. The beauty of anonymity is that people speak their minds, unrestrained from social impetus. Although anonymity is a double edged sword, I believe that the blunt, raw truth is much more valuable than a veiled, politically correct, socially acceptable response. This is one of the reasons why 4chan is such a popular place, everyone speaks their mind without having to worry about karma/internet points or how their opinions will impact their real lives from doxxing and such.

I maintain two identities on most social sites/chatrooms/hn; one that uses my online alias, and one that uses an abbreviation of my name (bsamuels). Whenever I feel like voicing an uncomfortable or controversial opinion, I use the online alias.

[lucaspiller]

I'm happy to use my real name, and if you are talking shit I am happy to tell you. I assume pretty much the same as you, but the other way around: If people use their real name and confront me I am a lot more likely to take on board what they are saying, than someone who uses a pseudonym. I assume they are just trying to be confrontational and start an argument.

Edit: Actually it depends on the community. I would not use my real name on 4chan, but here and Reddit I am happy to. I don't get involved with any communities where there is a risk of really pissing someone or law enforcement off however.

[simonh]

What complete and utter rubbish.

Simon Hibbs

[return0]

Case in point, eponymous comments tend to be content-free and rude.

[kylemaxwell]

That is exactly the opposite of what you said above.

[return0]

i wasnt being entirely serious, and i presume the parent didn't either (he doesnt even have a fullname handle)

[matthewmacleod]

That's an interesting view - I comprehensively use my real name online, and I don't think it causes me to avoid confrontation or controversy, though it probably does make me consider what I'm saying to a greater degree. Along the lines of "hey, maybe I should think about my opinion of this topic in greater detail, rather than going on a rant," which I might otherwise do.

[Edmond]

Saying controversial things while hiding behind anonymity isn't exactly what I call brave. People are People, meaning not being anonymous has a modulating influence on people's behavior and that is a good thing.

If you doubt this just descend into the comment section of any news article to see the vile stuff people post online because they are anonymous.

[return0]

You are confusing controversy with confrontation, rudeness and hate. Also, the inanity of comments has more to do with the reach of the audience rather than anonimity. The anonymous trolling in news sites is not worse than the author-signed YouTube comments. And we all know the best comments are here on HN, anonymously.

[twobits]

There is a fine line between "brave" and "stupid".

[nairteashop]

On the surface, yes, I suppose if you use your real name you may be tempted to tone down your opinion a bit (presumably the reason why youtube switched to G+ commenting with real names, etc).

But on HN, I've actually seen the exact opposite - people with handles derived from their real names seem to make more serious, well thought-out comments. I don't know about "most controversial", but certainly the most useful, which to me is more important. (I have a made-up handle, so I'm not one of these people :)

You'll see this reflected on the HN leader board as well; I assume that - like any online discussion board - made-up handles are the majority on HN, but real-name based handles figure quite prominently there. Not sure why.

[return0]

> real-name based handles figure quite prominently

My ( controversial) idea is that people often upvote persons, not their opinions. Many of HN top have curated well known internet personas with separate blogs (either by their real names or nicknames). A familiar handle (either real or famous nick) is downvoted less frequently than an anonymous handle.

[twobits]

HN is technical. You yourself put "most controversial" in quotes. Worst case, you are wrong. It's measurable and it's done. Try saying controversial things about politics or social or theological issues, and you can get killed, mobbed, thrown to jail, your life totally destroyed. "Reputation" for technical things is nice. "Reputation" on political things can be "the 10th anniversary since his execution".

[philwelch]

You've never gotten into an argument with me, then.

[pbhjpbhj]

How do you know they're using their real name? Do you research it or do you assume that people using what looks like a real sounding name are using their own real [legal] name?

[AndrewKemendo]

Here is a n=1 for you: I just forcefully argued against male circumcision on Reddit. Check it out if you like.

[bsamuels]

The problem is that circumcision isn't a heated controversy, it's not like someone is going to dox you because you made an argument against it.

Here's a few arguments off the top of my head that someone might dox you for:

-Whether or not feminism is the cause of the recent emasculation of men

-Whether or not Israel is committing crimes against humanity in Gaza and against the Palestinians

-Whether or not transexual persons should be medically referred to as their original gender or new gender.

-Whether or not affirmative action should exist.

Pretty much any debate that is emotionally charged has the potential for people to try to screw with your real life over it, circumcision is not one of them.

[mason240]

>The problem is that circumcision isn't a heated controversy

On Reddit(I don't know about anywhere else because I've never seen it discussed anywhere else), there seems to be alot of assumptions made about people who argue against it, specifically that they are MRA extremists who are misogynistic.

[robbrown451]

I would far prefer discuss such charged topics in places where people have incentives to choose their words carefully. It's fine to have a controversial opinion, but without checks and balances on behavior, you don't have a discussion, you just have a bunch of racists spouting their vile views.

[twobits]

"you just have a bunch of racists spouting their vile views"

So you are the one that will wisely choose which opinions are "vile", and blacklist them?

[AndrewKemendo]

As I mentioned elsewhere this was just the first one off the top of my head.

[gaius]

That is not a particularly controversial point; I think pretty much everyone agrees now that genital mutilation of babies is wrong.

[betterunix]

Speak for yourself; here in America only a minority of people are really concerned about male circumcision and it is widely performed for religious and non-religious reasons. You are also ignoring the very large population of Muslims in the world, who are generally not opposed to circumcision.

One of the great things about the Internet, though, is that you are free to express a minority point of view without having to wait for some editor to approve of it. This is true regardless of whether or not you choose to post under your real name.

[auctiontheory]

Not sure it's "everyone." In the US, about 58% of male babies are circumcised, and I'm sure the rate among families who are not recent immigrants is much higher.

[return0]

If I used my real name, you would probably guess I m uncircumcised, and unlikely to support genital mutilation. Glad I didn't, though, I learned an interesting thing about you and your beliefs.

[chongli]

I guess you have a different idea of controversial than return0.

[AndrewKemendo]

Well that was just one example that was recent in mind. I'm sure you can find any number of controversial things in my internet history.

[VLM]

This assumes the purpose of the internet is trolling and confrontation. If you feel like my mom is watching us talk about Scala programming, the only relevance is she'd be bored out of her skull (its not her kinda thing)

[ryanthejuggler]

I have to argue against that. Many people want to make themselves heard and become known for their opinions, so they attach their real name to their work.

[return0]

Which is why they're likely to be crowd-pleasers rather than original contributors. The various karma systems only exacerbate this behavior.