We've had a few discussions on the forum over the years about whether anonymity leads to more abuse or not. This article suggests we already should know the answer, because the South Koreans have the evidence: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/29/surprisingly-good-evidence-that-real-name-policies-fail-to-improve-comments/.

OLO certainly has become a more polite space over the last years, but obviously it has nothing to do with anonymity, because we haven't changed our policy on that. It does appear to have something to do with eliminating some of the more abusive posters, C J Morgan being the most notable example, and our shaming policy where the spot where a deleted comment is replaced with a note saying that the comment has been deleted and giving a reason why.

But I'm still not persuaded that anonymity isn't a contributing issue to abuse on the net. It certainly seems from my online qual that people will say things online that they would never offline and that the lack of an offline reputation is part of that.

I did not realise that you 'eliminated' CJ Morgan, I thought he just died of cancer or something.

I will be much more wary of what I say in the future.

It's funny you say, because just the other I realised Facebook (FB) is like the missing link between online life, and real life. Once in awhile someone on FB will have a brain fart and blow whatever uncontrolled stream of subconsciousness all over someone's page damning the consequences. This is why FB began allowing you to delete what you post, some time back.

Anonymity definitely gives people a form of Dutch courage as they think, 'Hang on, I don't know you', and off they go. You'll find with discussion online, people will resort to using certain language/sarcasm/frustration MUCH quicker than they might having the same discussion at some gathering.

Great Topic Graham,

We have a Cyber bullying campaign http://www.voterland.org/watch_campaign.php?f1=70&random=1207411776 that asks if you support being Cyber smart and supported or enforce a mandatory ID and bully pays and to date most oppose mandatory ID as an invasion of privacy. This shows that many Australians are simply cowards without the courage to put their names to what they say. No wonder abuse and crime are so rampant and the destruction of businesses by hackers is seen as a bit of a joke. It is not hard to see why the swagman jumped into the billabong.

Good morning Graham:

...Anonymity is comfortable to most online posters I am sure. There are obvious benefits in anonymity for the poster. You mentioned in the previous discussion on the subject though, of a concern for liability of yourself in your role with OLO. Maybe this concern of yours needs to be addressed specifically here.

Cheers Dan...

I firmly believe that anonymity encourages abuse of a kind that few people would indulge in if they could be held accountable.
But there's another aspect to this.
It seems to me that if we wish to publicly express an opinion, and presumable seek to persuade others to agree with us, then we should accept personal responsibility for what we are asserting.
That is, in part, why I have always signed posts here and on other internet sites where I engage, either as a contributor or as a commentor.
Yes, I also benefit by promoting my blog, I freely admit that, but I've always put a link back to me even when I had nothing to promote, because I do think that this is an important principle.
If we aren't willing to be associated with our words, then we shouldn't make them public.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au