4 ms·

I think I've posted this here before, but there is some evidence that eliminating anonymity does not improve civility: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/29/surpris

I think I've posted this here before, but there is some evidence that eliminating anonymity does not improve civility: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/29/surprisingly-good-evidence-that-real-name-policies-fail-to-improve-comments/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/29/surprisingly-good-evidence-... Anonymity or pseudonymity do, however, have benefits that should be considered before eliminating them. Whistleblowers and employees of companies being discussed are the two that come to mind immediately.

meritt 13y ago
HN is a fairly tight knit community overall and I think the repercussions for being problematic citizens would be stronger. Simply posting someone's real name is not sufficient: It needs to be the person, their company, their work history, etc, to be a sufficiently strong deterrent. Your point about whistle-blowers and retaining anonymity for privacy/protection reasons is a very valid one, I hadn't considered that.
roguecoder 13y ago
I have noticed that in Anonymous and pseudonymous environments people seem more willing to speak from personal experience and in the first person, which enhances and personalizes discourse. Actually, my favorite environment of all time was enforced anonymity with hiding comments that got downvoted. Without the ego payoff of persistent identity, ignoring the trolls was actually effective and people who's comments weren't engaged with just left. The discussion that was left was insightful and frequently constructive.