Just to be clear: I wasn't talking about tight-knit online communities where people know each other well in meatspace. In such communities usually anonymity is not desired, and even if it is (for instance, a gay person is not yet comfortable letting everyone know that, but wants to advance arguments for an inclusive campus on a college bb), usually pseudonimity would suffice.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 21:03, Udhay Shankar N <ud...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> Isn't it then a desirable thing to have consistent anonymity >>> (by people posting from a random e-mail addresses each time), even if >>> it causes discomfort? > > Another way of answering this, with apologies to Denis Leary: > > One word: reputation [1] That was sort of my question: can we dream of a world without reputation? For instance, a world without reputation would allow one to argue as a true devil's advocate, without anyone knowing what your "normal" position on a matter is. (This could be seen as potentially helpful when playing devil's advocate in a "mr. industrial efficiency" vs. "minority murderer" debate.) Just in case I wasn't clear earlier: I wasn't advancing an argument for anonymity, just pointing out that anonymity / reputation-less-ness does seem to have its benefits. Distilled, my post was, "why is reputation important?". > Another word: disinhibition [2] [3] But disinhibition is a very strong argument against such a reputation-less world. A world filled with YouTube/4Chan commenters is a scary proposition. > Udhay > > [1] which, as should be obvious, has consistency in personae as a > prerequisite. > [2] http://www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html > [3] also sometimes known as the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: > http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/ > > -- > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > >
