I remember hearing a talk by Philip Zimbardo, one of the main figures in the Stanford Prison Experiment. He concluded that 'evil' behavior is a product of a co

I remember hearing a talk by Philip Zimbardo, one of the main figures in the Stanford Prison Experiment. He concluded that 'evil' behavior is a product of a combination of: 1) Mindlessly taking the first small step (eg Milgrim Experiment - the first 45volts couldn't be felt) 2) Dehumanization of others (giving them numbers in a prison) 3) De-individualisation of self (anonymity) 4) Diffusion of personal responsibility (saying a higher authority takes responsibility) 5) Blind obedience to authority 6) Uncritical conformity to group norms ('Everyone else is doing it') 7) Passive tolerance of Evil through Inactions and/or Indifference 8) New or unfamiliar situations (default actions don't apply so morality can become disengaged) If you take this in the context of anonymity online, a substantial number of these factors are heavily involved(2,3,4 and potentially 1,7&8). Anonymity has its advantages, but the encouragement of it diffuses people's responsibility, potentially encourages 'evil' action, and has subsequently risk of escalation... I think my vote has to be transparency. TED talk link: http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_o...