3 ms·
I'm biased by empirical data - e.g. look at youtube comments (anonymous) vs. amazon reviews (real identity owned by amazon). Human nature demonstrates that a f
by bleair 10y ago
I'm biased by empirical data - e.g. look at youtube comments (anonymous) vs. amazon reviews (real identity owned by amazon).
Human nature demonstrates that a fraction of people really like to put down / bully / see others suffering because they are personally unhappy (e.g. the shock talk shows). Anonymity allows bullying behavior with no consequence.
More simply, why do people spend time and energy online "trolling" others. Clearly a sizable portion of people like trolling others, though I don't personally see why.
- syshum 10y agoI often see this comparison, it is hardly "empirical data" Leaving a product review is a completely different social activity than commenting on a Video, videos that are often political, religious or other personally controversial topic Comparing YT comments to Amazon Product reviews holds no value at all. It is telling that you dismiss actual research for your own anecdotal and flawed observations to accept the idea that Real name Policies are a good thing
- NoGravitas 10y agoI admin a fairly large page on Facebook. I would say the level of meanness in the comments is closer to YouTube comments than to Amazon reviews, despite Facebook's real names policy.
- pessimizer 10y ago> Human nature demonstrates that a fraction of people really like to put down / bully / see others suffering because they are personally unhappy (e.g. the shock talk shows). I don't believe this is true at all. My experience of human nature is that all people really like to put down, bully, or see others suffering, but each person has their own particular groups who make them feel that way. They also generally don't think of it as trolling, but as heroic truthtelling - as do observers who think of the bully as a member of the ingroup and the target as a member of an outgroup.