3 ms·
Both Moot and the author are correct. It is well accepted that anonymity brings out the worst in people (the author has said so himself). It is also understood
by teyc 15y ago
Both Moot and the author are correct.
It is well accepted that anonymity brings out the worst in people (the author has said so himself). It is also understood that context guides behaviours. For example, one might be more disinhibited on a tropical holiday. Another example is footballers behaving badly on tours. Another one is the unbelievable atrocities soldiers commit away from their home "context".
Moot's thesis is that people become interesting when you provide them a different context, while the author is saying that it is far healthier to have one well integrated identity.
- neoveller 15y agoTo connect the dots here: I think both Moot and I employ a sort of essentialist rhetoric to get attention, the same way you would write something enormously more controversial under a pen name. A more strict interpretation of Moot's argument is that Facebook should be filled with pen names, as people need to be creative instead of simply informative, and that rigidity kills creativity. A strict interpretation of my argument is just as you said, but also that the well integrated identity comes before anonymity before anonymity may become useful / audienced. Moot's simple championing of anonymity misses the point that you need an audience first, which is gathered by putting people in a position where they can willingly be exposed to its content. It's the same as why farmville isn't 100% evil: it brings people to the web who otherwise would never be there, and acts as a positive externality on all other web sub-industries.