4 ms·
#3 is what always confuses me about the argument that switching to real names would in and of itself make flames and trolling less common. That said, I don't t
by sarvenna 16y ago
#3 is what always confuses me about the argument that switching to real names would in and of itself make flames and trolling less common.
That said, I don't think this is necessarily something where solid evidence matters. It seems to me that requiring real names is much more about making bloggers and journalists who consistently have their real names attached to postings feel more on an even footing with their commentariat. See, for example, this post on crosscut where Ted Van Dyk argues that he feels more comfortable with a critic that has a real name attached: http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/19530/Should-online-comments-carry-real-names--Why-not-/ http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/19530/Should-online-commen... Is that about categorical differences in comment quality, or personal comfort within a newsroom?
- thirdstation 16y agoI put discussion/aggregator sites like HN in a different class than news sites. We come here to talk about things we see elsewhere. It's not very important who we are in Real Life. I think anonymity can improve the discussions. Mr. Van Dyk makes a valid point but doesn't take it to the conclusion that comments aren't created equal. I would prefer to only see comments that improve the overall quality of the article -- just like the old days when you had to write a letter to the editor to augment or rebut an article (as he mentions).