Anonymous social apps fail because anonymity removes meaning, enables meanness
backchannel.com
backchannel.com
I may be unusual but I avoid Facebook precisely because I don't want that sort of attention directed at my brain farts and the ephemeral detritus of my everyday life.
When I make something worthwhile and of substance, that's different, but I won't be putting it on Facebook.
Not sure why you are downvoted. Your comments resonate. I do FB however.
>When I make something worthwhile and of substance, that's different, but I won't be putting it on Facebook.
I agree with your comment and I share your feeling, but I don't think this approach can/should be the norm. I find that attention-seeking is so fundamental to human nature, that most people have to spend a LOT of energy to suppress it and I don't know if it's worth the trouble (is it that detrimental ?)
The only successful anonymous social media out there are used for trolling/venting/shocking/expressing extremely unpopular opinions - things that people absolutely don't want to take any credit for.
HN can be totally anonymous, but good luck being mean here! The issue is how you moderate your forum, the competence with which you do it, and the kind of people you draw. Having a name doesn't change behavior as much as people would like to think.
We're not suddenly turning into beasts because of the internet, we're just connected to every last beast out there. They always existed, but they use to have to do things like slip pamphlets in the pages of library books, or shout at people on the street. Now they have the internet, and a lot of people seem to think that it's not just a new medium for them, but a new species.
It is not a new species, or a new behavioral profile.
That is most of the market share. We all want attention, but a small percent of people look for it in non-compromising ways.
I don't think that most people would have sought to publicize most details of their lives without prompting. The reason why the prompting exists is simple and obvious: your information is valuable product which can be packaged and sold.
I talk to lots of people and if I start asking them about themselves or their life most are happy to talk about themselves as long as you don't seem like a threat in some way.
People are naturally self-centered and enjoy attention. Kids are the best example of that.
From the WELL through YouTube to Twitter, people will be mean under their irl identities.
And there are real social costs to removing anonymity, which disproportionately fall on precisely the kind of people you'd want to stop meanness against.
A great deal of research has been done on this, since back in the Usenet days.
"Usenet did it better, and semi-anonymous, and ubiquitous."
Why are the general discussion sections of anonymous imageboards the most popular part of said sites?
It appeals to a wider audience than any specific board and provides novelty.
Anonymous Social Networking Apps Fail Because Anonymity Removes Meaning, Enables Meanness
(and the apps focused on by the article are Secret and Yik Yak)
Now that's an understatement, if I ever saw one. I'd call it more of a "stand underneath a waterfall of sewage".
Which is, of course, not remotely a "hidden" rule, and may be one of the best known rules of the Internet. Penny Arcade gave it a name, years ago: The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. So the headline's not just uselessly hiding info to be clickbait, it's lying.
The complete opposite is true.
The true meanlessness in society is the bland echo chamber on places like Facebook where everybody parrots the politically correct ideas they're told to say by the corporate media.
With real names and identities attached, most people are usually pressured away from saying any idea that goes outside of the narrow 3 x 5 Card of Official Approved Public Opinion. Real names and identities create an echo chamber of political correctness and trying your damnedest NOT to offend anybody lest you ruin your social or career prospects. Sure, some people trickle in truth sometimes, but enough people are silenced so that people who hold normal opinions are made to feel like they're the minority.
As far as meanness goes, sure freedom sometimes gives people the ability to say dumb things, but there's no way to curb that without restricting freedom. But honestly, the true meanness in society is not people telling the truth and leading them down a road to ruin. To give a very minor example: you're not supposed to say the truth about fat people because we have a body acceptance movement that has declared that everybody fat is beautiful and no choices are unhealthy. Wishing that something was the case doesn't make it so and denying reality and "not being mean" leads to people destroying their lives. The real mean thing in this case is to stay silent and deny reality and not tell the truth.
I'm just wondering if you've looked at any hot topic that uses disqus or facebook for comments?
People aren't exactly reluctant to speak their minds, with their real names attached
Also, who those people are is important. The smartest folks who have careers and a social reputation at stake are going to be less likely to contribute. The people who might be more willing to speak their mind on Facebook might not be the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Autism and craziness aside, if you want to discuss real ideas online you go to places like 4chan. You see memes and ideas created there pop up elsewhere on the internet days later.
If my professional identity was on here, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying politically incorrect ideas.
It's actually your opinion that I find much more threatening. You don't want the freedom to talk shit about fat people, which, honestly, is still pretty easy to do, and getting easier. You want my response to be acceptance of your political incorrectness. You want to cap my free speech so that you don't feel the social consequences of yours. You want a captive audience. Who's more of a danger to freedom of speech than you, who would take the right to respond away from everyone else if you had your way?
I have no idea where you're getting this idea that I want to stiffle anybody's right to speak. If you want to use Facebook or not, it's your call and I've never said otherwise so you're wrong about that.