20 ms·
We've seen with facebook that have real names doesn't improve the level of discourse that much. I think it's the protection (or at least the apparent protectio
by rjtavares 9y ago
We've seen with facebook that have real names doesn't improve the level of discourse that much.
I think it's the protection (or at least the apparent protection): you can't be a jerk in person in a public place without exposing yourself to immediate negative repercussions. That's why online forums with harsher moderation are usually much better (one of the best examples being /r/askhistorians).
- SeanLuke 9y ago> We've seen with facebook that have real names doesn't improve the level of discourse that much. Yeah, okay. How about: real names + no private gardens.
- emodendroket 9y agoWhat does "private garden" mean here? People have no problem showing up on public Facebook groups, visible to all, and posting racist stuff in their real names.
- hcknwscommenter 9y agoI think, and totally admit it is pure speculation, that the hate foments in the private garden until the person is brainwashed enough to believe their hate is a normal and acceptable viewpoint. It is at that point that it leaks out into the public groups, visible to all.
- posterboy 9y agoIndeed I 5hink it's the missing direct personal contact. It takes a lot of, say, training, to learn to use communication media, too. You just can't have a chat as if face to face, in writing. And most people aren't well educated at authoring, either. At the worst, some wouldn't even know how to lead a conversation anyhow. Online forums just expose that. And I think we as a society at large, are still figuring this out, since 50 to 100 years, so it's a mess.