[bguthrie]

I think what both pieces miss is the behavior that asymmetric anonymity seems to encourage. The ability to lambast public figures from behind a screen of anonymity seems to bring out the abusive worst in people, and the target has nowhere to run. Conversely, communities in which everyone is anonymous seem to foster a degree of creativity and respect rarely found elsewhere. I think Altman was thinking about the former when he addressed the app, and this piece addresses the latter. But they're different kinds of anonymity.

Edit: Asymmetric, not asynchronous.

[pamelafox]

My only experience on 4chan was due to a Google Alert notifying me that I was the subject of a thread on /d/. That thread was the highest density collection of insults about me that I'd ever seen on the net, and sadly, I'm not yet thick-skinned enough to entirely ignore the "comments on the internet."

When I see things like that, or comments on youtube videos of my talks, I sometimes think "maybe I should retreat and make myself not such a visible target." But I stay because I feel like I'm meant to be a role model for my gender, and people seem to like to hear the things I say. Or at least, I stay for now.

I get the impression that communities like this feel that people put themselves out there purely for their own benefit, and therefore they have the right to attack them, because they are asking for it. I think many of us never asked for it, but given the pros/cons, we stick with it. There are definitely cons, though.

I don't see how to prevent anonymous communities from lambasting public figures, and don't think they should necessarily be prevented. But it sure would be nice if they realized that everyone's a person, and nobody likes to wake up to find they've arbitrarily been chosen as the subject of taunts for the day.

[pervycreeper]

>it sure would be nice if they realized that everyone's a person

I hope you realize that anonymous comments are also (usually) written by people, and the points of view they express are also worthy of consideration and respect. Making comments which lack a connection to a person's real life identity enables the commenter to use an honest and direct tone, without resorting to passive-aggressive innuendo.

Also, people tend to forget that there is an implicit social contract involved in becoming a "public figure", namely, in return for having a platform for disseminating ideas, the people you are able to reach have a right to respond and criticize them (and you) in return. If your ideas are too weak to defend, perhaps they are not deserving of wider attention.

[prawn]

Are the ideas being attacked or the individual in this case?

Many people simply don't know how to respond to something they dislike or feel threatened by and anonymity means they don't even have to consider a valid argument in their aggression. Sometimes race or gender or other feeling of competition are enough to make people feel threatened - not much relating to social contract or "points of view worthy of consideration and respect" then.

[pervycreeper]

>anonymity means they don't even have to consider a valid argument in their aggression

Is that just speculation, or did you have an example in mind when you said that? Not being a user of 4chan's /d/ board (believe it or not!), I am not familiar with the particular controversy referenced in GP's post. Not knowing what they were reacting to, and what the reactions were, I can't comment on whether there was any "aggression" without "valid arguments" (real or perceived), but I can not think of anything that could have been posted that would be genuinely worthy of concern (that was specifically enabled by anonymity).

>Sometimes race or gender or other feeling of competition are enough to make people feel threatened

Not sure if you're referring to the commenters or GP poster, but in either case, it's hard to see how any of those could be considered relevant to the question of anonymous commenting.

My guiding assumption here is that a free, open, unfettered exchange of ideas is a higher value than preventing feelings of offense or hurt egos.

[andrewflnr]

Well if you don't know what you're talking about, not being "familiar with the particular controversy", maybe you should refrain from defending the participants. Sometimes people's views really don't deserve any respect. None. Use your imagination. Granted, they're often perfectly capable of saying such things under their own name.

[xentronium]

> they don't even have to consider a valid argument in their aggression

Yep. There's nothing you can do about anonymous hate, other than shrug and move on.

[pjc50]

No, there is not an implicit social contract in becoming a public figure, especially for those people who become public figures without their intent or consent (e.g "Star Wars Kid").

Also, if this was limited to criticizing ideas, it might be more reasonable. It isn't. For example, Caroline Crialdo-Perez getting rape threats on twitter for saying it would be a good idea to have a woman on a banknote.

To turn your phrase around, there is an implicit social contract in having a platform for disseminating ideas that you not use it for threats, intimidation, abuse or causing emotional distress.

[Ardren]

> I was the subject of a thread on /d/

Are you sure that was /d/ and not /prog/? They are a little different in content.

[pjc50]

Please tell me how context makes a difference to vitriolic abuse of an outsider.

[jmillikin]

/prog/ is for discussions of programming and technology. /d/ is for pornography so abhorrent that the rest of 4chan doesn't want to encounter it.

[bguthrie]

I wish I knew what to tell you, except that I count myself among the people who like to hear the things you say. Please don't retreat––your voice is important. No one should have to be thick-skinned enough to endure that kind of abuse.

[sorahn]

Taunting for day is probably the least of your problems. When you make it to meme status, it might be a little harder.

[ben0x539]

> The ability to lambast public figures from behind a screen of anonymity seems to bring out the abusive worst in people,

I feel like this point is really overstated. I'm much more worried about people in disadvantaged positions suffering abuse from people who do not even feel the need to be anonymous, because society tolerates their abusive behavior. Comparatively, some anonymous screeching on a message board doesn't seem all that worrying.

[potatolicious]

> "Comparatively, some anonymous screeching on a message board doesn't seem all that worrying."

If only it was limited to "anonymous screeching".

Bear in mind that 4chan invented the term doxxing. We're talking about the anonymous mob inflicting real harm at many levels - from the mildly damaging (review bombs), to the extremely harmful (threats of rape, death, threats against family, home).

All of the above has happened, not just on 4chan, but in many other communities that are anonymous. It happens so much we have a term for it. It happens so much that Reddit had to make a site-wide decree to get rid of it (to varying degrees of success).

It's a level of abuse that only the deranged would engaged in, or a sufficient combination of sociopathy and anonymity.

We're not talking about "John Doe sucks and is a giant asshole!", we're talking about "Hey everyone troll John Doe by calling in bomb threats lolz!".

Symmetric anonymity is great. It guarantees that nothing exceeds the bounds of "anonymous screeching" as you put it. Asymmetric anonymity allows one side to attack a target that has no recourse whatsoever.

[ben0x539]

What I'm saying is that revoking the anonymity of the offenders doesn't seem to do enough to dissuade them.

[wpietri]

I would rather you let the people in the disadvantaged positions judge that for themselves.

I personally don't worry much about anonymous screeching. But then, I'm a white male with 14 years in SF and a long background in tech. I've got sufficient social and financial capital that some anonymous people being dicks to me is unlikely to make much difference.

But that indifference also means I'm unlikely to be a target. Watch any nature channel: predators are careful to select the targets they can most easily hurt. Having talked with people who have been the targets of sufficient internet abuse, I promise: it, as intended, causes real trauma.

[loupeabody]

I tend to agree, so long as you meant asymmetric anonymity instead of asynchronous anonymity

[bguthrie]

Ugh, fixed. Thanks!

[camillomiller]

Digital culture of a nation is fundamental for this to happen. The day before yesterday a 14yo girl took her life here in Italy. She was being cyber-bullied by some other anonymous teenagers on her ask.fm page. I think that's an unfortunate situation that relates more to child care than the Internet, and I know this single event can't be a case against anonymity. It's obviously not a case pro-anonymity either.

Try to explain that complexity to my 62yo father that gets angry because people are free to do what they want and be as mean as they can without facing any dire consequence because of the internet.

Journalists were not that good at explaining that IPs exist and those people who mocked the girl and told her to take her life will eventually be caught.

My father, like the majority of Italian people now gets the idea that ask.fm is a Wild West of anonymity where you can actually say whatever you want. Certainly, it's not that. Yet, it's not a place that "fosters" creativity.

[DanBC]

> The ability to lambast public figures from behind a screen of anonymity seems to bring out the abusive worst in people,

You could have left out the "of anonymity" and still have been true.

[euoia]

> asynchronous anonymity

Do you mean asymmetric rather than asynchronous?