[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.