3 ms·

Pseudonymity and anonymity are not the same thing. Pseudonyms that are not trivially created and discarded can build reputation and will generally behave thems

Pseudonymity and anonymity are not the same thing. Pseudonyms that are not trivially created and discarded can build reputation and will generally behave themselves (see Urbit’s approach to this problem). Anonymous accounts incentivize awful behavior (see 4chan). Real life is different because you’re not truly anonymous in person - you’re recognizable most of the time and identifiable. There are also more in person norms and social constraints. The exception to this in real life might be mobs, where the chaos and confusion can provide some anonymity and well - people in mobs don’t behave that well either.

Swizec 6y ago
Fair, pseudonymity works very well. I think a lot of it comes down to social norms. From what I remember, 4chan was almost boringly pleasant outside /b/. Because the norm and moderation were towards thoughtful posting. On the other hand pseudonymous reddits with the norm of knee jerk responses and political twitter are awful. Because that’s the encouraged norm.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
This very site is a good counterpoint to your distinction. HN allows for easy creation of anonymous accounts, and doesn't do much to help you track who says what. And yet some people, by choosing to stick to their handle over time, build a reputation. And yet, even the anonymous people mostly behave, and we end up with a civil community. Personally, I think the important factors for maintaining a civil community is a focus on civility, some overt selection of topics (vs. having a group that's about everything), and a lot of moderation work in the background that prevents the decay of standards. Social norms, unfortunately, don't maintain themselves.
- fossuser 6y ago
  Most HN accounts are pseudonymous with the occasional anonymous throw away for something specific. HN also has great moderation (thanks DanG) and a strict set of rules which helps. If HN was truly anonymous (everyone posted under anon accounts) I think it would decay and I’m not sure DanG would be able to save it. I do think Urbit’s approach to this (low cost to creating an ID) is a really good one for handling this problem and the general problem of spam decentralized, and at scale. https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/urbit-id/ https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/urbit-id/

Swizec 6y ago

Fair, pseudonymity works very well. I think a lot of it comes down to social norms. From what I remember, 4chan was almost boringly pleasant outside /b/. Because the norm and moderation were towards thoughtful posting. On the other hand pseudonymous reddits with the norm of knee jerk responses and political twitter are awful. Because that’s the encouraged norm.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

This very site is a good counterpoint to your distinction. HN allows for easy creation of anonymous accounts, and doesn't do much to help you track who says what. And yet some people, by choosing to stick to their handle over time, build a reputation. And yet, even the anonymous people mostly behave, and we end up with a civil community. Personally, I think the important factors for maintaining a civil community is a focus on civility, some overt selection of topics (vs. having a group that's about everything), and a lot of moderation work in the background that prevents the decay of standards. Social norms, unfortunately, don't maintain themselves.

fossuser 6y ago
Most HN accounts are pseudonymous with the occasional anonymous throw away for something specific. HN also has great moderation (thanks DanG) and a strict set of rules which helps. If HN was truly anonymous (everyone posted under anon accounts) I think it would decay and I’m not sure DanG would be able to save it. I do think Urbit’s approach to this (low cost to creating an ID) is a really good one for handling this problem and the general problem of spam decentralized, and at scale. https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/urbit-id/ https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/urbit-id/