[wpietri]

People have everything within them: we contain multitudes. But we also become what we do, and what we surround ourselves with.

Setting aside 4chan, which I don't know well, look at newspaper comments. People positively compete to be giant assholes. They practice being mean. I think there's a big difference between people having the potential for meanness within them and indulging that in a way that magnifies and sharpens it.

There are definitely contexts where people will talk honestly about the assholish thoughts and feelings we all have. E.g., I might tell a friend, "Man, I know that Bob means well, but I really can't stand him some times." That's honesty.

But for me to go and tell Bob, "Leave me alone you half-wit inbred nose-picker," that goes beyond honest to mean because I'm acting with clear disregard for hurting other people. And if I create a context where it's ok for people to be mean like that, I think it really is creating more meanness.

[DanBC]

Well this is confusing.

You start by saying that 4chan isn't a good example of anonymity being a good example of not-meaness.

Then you say you don't know 4chan very well.

Then you give the example of commentors on newspaper articles competing to be giant arseholes. But often newspaper comments are not anonymous.

I feel like the sands are shifting.

Meanness in online comments is important because some people think real names stops it. Look at HN where the expectation is that people should behave like assholes, and often use real world identifiable IDs, and yet has many examples of mean comments.

[wpietri]

Let me see if I can aid you in your confusion.

4chan has produced some startling examples of meanness and is widely know for it. It is also widely know for its anonymity. So when somebody denies that anonymity breeds meanness and uses 4chan as an example, I think they have to clearly address that conflict. To point out that conflict, I don't think I have to be an expert on 4chan.

When I gave the example of newspaper comments, I should have been more specific: the sites I had in mind were ones that were pseudonymous. Since we were talking about anonymity and behavior, I thought that was obvious from context, but rereading it now I could see that getting missed. Sorry for the confusion.

[aestra]

> People positively compete to be giant assholes.

People compete to be giant assholes under their own names. Facebook logins with picture and all.

[wpietri]

I see much less of that on Facebook than elsewhere.

Nobody is suggesting that meanness first entered the world with computer-mediated anonymity. They're just asking whether it increases the frequency, depth, and persistence of it.

[Antiquarian]

When you use intemperate language to tell Bob to leave you alone, you are not in an anonymous context.

In an anonymous context, there is no you and no Bob, just alternating post-sources. The same person may be both you and Bob, putting on a Punch and Judy show.

[wpietri]

This is true, but I'm not sure how it's relevant. Alternating post-sources can still be mean about third parties.

[Antiquarian]

From anonymity, it follows that A and B cannot raise their own statuses by being mean to a 3rd party.

From ephemerality, it follows that anything mean A and B post cannot long endure. Were C & D to post something mean about a 3rd party in the same thread, it would push the mean postings of A & B into /dev/null. Were E & F to post something mean about a 4th party in a new thread, it would push the entire thread about the 3rd party into /dev/null.

[WalterSear]

But in either case, you brought the meanness, or lack of it, with you.