Who decides identity? The speaker can implicitly mark their words anonymous, but what does that do for the recipient? Slashdot automatically labels anonymous co

Who decides identity? The speaker can implicitly mark their words anonymous, but what does that do for the recipient? Slashdot automatically labels anonymous comments as being from "anonymous coward". But they have a point. If someone is posting anonymously, we can infer they must be hiding something, or that they must be protecting something, or that their true identity is inconvenient. Possibilities are real enough to alter our reception. So anonymous caries consequences of its own. It carries it's unique plot lines. Though it can take practice, we can and do make use of anonymous messages. It is merely a new "mode" of communication, and it gives rise to certain types of communities. However, anonymity must be consensual for it to work. Law enforcement will still come after your identity depending on what you say, and that is a case where the consent is broken (or never acknowledged according to them). Messages become drive-by shootings, and this has an effect on the exchange. Also, user names are not the equivalent of anonymity. On HN, karma is a feature of each identity, and baggage can be attached just as easily. And if someone says anything interesting, we can read their other comments to learn more about them. As we read more of what they've said, their user name will begin to have a unique aura. Now if we happen to read a new comment and recognize the name, it will ring a bell automatically, and we will already be working with more information than what was included in the utterance alone. At this point, we are not forced to consider the message on its own. We are working with identities that just may or may not be real.