Something on the web has more value when it is viewed by more individuals than otherwise, correct? Early anonymous communities did provide some kind of value to

Something on the web has more value when it is viewed by more individuals than otherwise, correct? Early anonymous communities did provide some kind of value to their members, but they comparatively provide more value today when more individuals are present. The problem when talking about social science is that everything is relational/relative. Rigid identity is necessary as a foundation for the MASSIVE (modern-day scale) usefulness of pen names and anonymity. It is not necessary for the smaller audience, but for the larger one which is online and present which we take for granted, it is necessary. Wild animals are often always looking for food. The claim of no-identity-before-statehood is, as stated, very, very relative, and I even wrote that this contrasts with identity as we know it today. The point is that identity did not matter when nobody had anything to do with themselves through it. Aristocrats, as written, are the exception due to their privilege of free time and surplus. The identity of a man who does one thing out of survival necessity is orders of magnitude less complex than the identity of a man who does several things and prides himself on all of them, and continuously has the option of re-defining himself. Moreover, I have to admit that the assumption of no identity before the Industrial Revolution is something I studied in the entirety of two social geography courses dealing with how context defines the modern imaginary (as everything is only imagined with us).