>For dealing with "bad actors", the problem is anonymity. I hear this a lot, and I always feel that it's misguided. I believe the greater problem is proximity.

>For dealing with "bad actors", the problem is anonymity. I hear this a lot, and I always feel that it's misguided. I believe the greater problem is proximity. The problem is proximity, not anonymity. ie, People will treat total strangers like trash if there isn't much proximity. For example, verified twitter accounts make comments that people would never make in a face-to-face interaction. (without an audience) And, you don't even need computers to witness this: road rage does not have a "walking rage" analogue. Normal, calm people who don't get into fights will treat another driver like trash. But the vast majority of them would never escalate this sort of confrontation if they were both pedestrians. I'm not suggesting that anonymity can't contribute, but I don't believe it's actually the root cause. eg, HN is largely anonymous, and for the most part it's a very nice community. There are a few reasons for this: - Heavy moderation of what articles are available for comment. (so, less moral outrage, and more informed discussion) - Heavy moderation of inappropriate comments by the moderators. - More importantly, heavy moderation of community values by community members: comments which disagree are completely acceptable as long as they're constructive and devoid of personal attacks, slander, etc. - Most importantly (and most controversially) all of the above points, as well as the focus of HN create a gatekeeping effect. HN is generally full of thoughtful and intelligent people