|
|
|
|
|
|
by DanBC
4516 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.