[danso]

> I strongly disagree. What I’ve observed is the opposite—that anonymity facilitates honest discourse, creates a level playing field for ideas to be heard, and enables creativity like none other.

I think Chris makes a great counter-argument, however, isn't it possible that anonymity can breed both meanness and creativity? I don't mean just creatively-cruel-pranks, but that what anonymity breeds is dependent on the community, and to an extent, how that community is moderated. HackerNews allows anonymity, but I think it'd be a much different place for discussion if it weren't for the mod policies in effect.

[wpietri]

Yes. Healthy communities, real or virtual, self-regulate through social feedback loops. Requiring real names activates those social feedback loops in a way that is very handy from the perspective of people designing communities.

If you're going to have anonymity, you need to find a workable substitute. Early BBSes were often pseudonymous, but they were also gardens carefully tended by their operators. HN's self-moderation and karma tracking provide a similar effect here. Quora has a functional mix of mostly real names with optional anonymity on a per-post basis plus user voting and heavy moderation to enforce a "be nice, be respectful" tone.

Another good example is John Scalzi, who moderates his blog comments using the "Mallet of Loving Correction". His comment policy is a great example, but it clearly takes a lot of thoughtful gardening on his part to keep a pseudonymous comments section from descending into something pretty ugly: http://whatever.scalzi.com/about/site-disclaimer-and-comment...

[crassus]

Scalzi considers "ugly" anyone that is outside a very small neighborhood of idea space. It's fine for his own professional blog, but it's incredibly narrow as a general principle for discussions.

[wpietri]

I don't think that's the case. He's pretty strict in enforcing behavior, including the behavior of staying on topic.

Another good example in this regard is Quora. They cover an incredibly wide range of topics and viewpoints. But they're pretty insistent on respectful behavior.

I think that focus, respectful behavior, is exactly what makes for good real-world discussions. Because on-line fora break the sort of continuous, subtle social signals that help guide real-world discussions, I think we need to be especially disciplined in pursuing that respect.

[crassus]

It's tempting to define "impoliteness" as disagreement with progressive beliefs about feminism or white racial guilt. Judging by what Scalzi has banned people for, he seems to fall victim to this. He uses the banhammer more than any other blogger I've followed. The others don't feel the need to curate the discussion so closely.

It's fine to be so closed off in your personal space, but the intellectual air can get a bit musty.

[wpietri]

Do you have some examples of him banning people who were behaving well and discussing topics respectfully but were still banned? I actually don't see him banning many people; I think he's just frank about being willing to ban.

In particular, I think a lot of my fellow white males who charge into topics of sexism and racism do so without significant respect for the lived experience of participants or the large amount of existing discussion. It is easy for them to see a ban on that behavior as intolerance of their opinion.

One blogger I'm fond of recently quoted this bit: "The more foreign the idea, the more relational groundwork you need to do before you can broach that topic." [1] He was quoting a Christian pastor who is talking about how to introduce the notion of human evolution to Christians who are (incorrectly) hostile to it. But it applies anywhere: jumping in and expecting people to instantly listen to your views is in itself a behavior, and a lot of communities find it disrespectful. That it isn't intended that way doesn't really matter; part of being respectful to people is caring about whether your friendly intentions are matched by the impact they have on your audience.

[1] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/02/10/why-youn...

[crassus]

I'm adding "disrespectful" to the list of euphemism that progressives use to silence dissent.

[Zikes]

Honest discourse means that you're able to express meanness, but it does not necessarily spawn that meanness from nothing.

[mikeg8]

I disagree. Honest discourse means you are able to express a differing point of view, even if it is very critical/harsh. Meanness would be calling someone a faggot when it is unrelated to the topic and that is never a part of real discourse.