Or Reddit? Which is the hackernews for everything else?
Facebook existed before, on millions of forums, blogs, websites and various accounts. But what changed everything was using real names. It was the real names and social proof that changed everything from something a bunch of nerds used (like IRC/various chat services/various forums) - to something everyone needed to be on and used daily.
Reddit/HN will remain non-mainstream for the foreseeable future.
Websites using pseudonyms use karma, upvotes etc. as social proof.
My point with mainstream was not views. My point with mainstream was that it will become something normal people could potentially use.
I like to think of reddit/StackExchange as the mid point between the completely disparate forums and a Facebook like interest based real-name social network.
They are like IRC.
When your website has that many uniques, and its subculture has been referenced by mainstream brands, TV shows, and continually shows up in real life (I just saw a local pizza shop that used an Advice Animal on a sandwich board outside), you are mainstream. When the President of the United States holds a Q&A session on your site, you are mainstream. When the internal drama of your website makes it onto the NYTimes and CNN, you are mainstream.
It's grown far, far beyond the internet-nerd stronghold it was a few years ago. Hell, at this point my humanities major friends are on Reddit, even if they don't comment.
Compare with Quora - which has made few inroads to any community besides "Silicon Valley Insider". The vast majority of content there is still about the tech industry and startups, and even on other topics the vast majority of commenters have tech industry/startup backgrounds. Mainstream? Really?
It may be that in the future a real-name-driven community will take the crown from Reddit as biggest community on the internet, but that's a long way from today, and I seriously doubt it will come in the form of Quora.
Shit, I just visited my Quora profile and one of the top 3 questions in my feed is "Quora Employees: Are Kah Seng Tay and Kah Keng Tay related?". This community is self-absorbed and self-referential in ways that even Reddit can't match.
Do you work there or own shares there.
Quora is just an expertexchange clone, deal with it.
Social proof is important where social proof is important. But there are plenty of areas where it has very little meaning or value.
Or on Github or SE or your email address.
At the very least, there is a strong case for keeping anonymity around, because this leads to good discussions about subjects that can't be discussed under real names - for one reason or the other. This is why I don't see reddit displaced in the near or medium term.
I'm not sure if this refutes your point, though. But real names make people keep their mouth shut in situations that might put them in a bad light, or might come back to bite them in the ass. How can you be sure that this isn't something that will limit Quora as well? Like I said, I'm not sure if I disagree with you. But the advangates of real-world online identities don't seem as obvious to me as you claim.
Have you been to Reddit lately? Pseudonyms has brought out the worst in many people, mostly because they know it's not attached to a reputation.
"No one wants their real names attached to their opinions on the internet"
Why? If you really can't stand behind your opinion, what's the point in having it in the first place?
What's the point of knowing something most people don't or of having a belief, unless the credit for it can be connected to your address or mother's maiden name?
I don't understand this sentiment at all. When I'm complimented for something that I've said anonymously from someone who has chosen to remain anonymous - I'm happy that I could help someone, or that I made someone smile. It doesn't matter who that someone is, and it doesn't matter whether they know where I work, or where my sister works.
In fact, I would prefer that they not know any of that stuff. I'm not sure why people don't understand pen names, why they are useful, and why they always have been.
There are a lot of reasons people want to stay anonymous that has nothing to do with cowardice, and that's why I cited the RealID case, because it sprouted a lot of conversation on why we prefer to remain unknown and separate our real selves from other personas. The [wonderful] acceptance speech Lana Wachowski gave last month during the Human Rights Campaign Awards went into why both her and her brother preferred staying out of the spotlight, but what it specifically meant to her as someone that was susceptible to unwanted attention and criticisms. As a woman, I can relate, and that's why I am so adamant about this issue.
> Why? If you really can't stand behind your opinion, what's the point in having it in the first place?
This is a really naive way of looking at opinions. They change. People grow. Why do people post anonymously to begin with? To avoid witch hunts by people that don't believe what they do, potentially dangerous people who are willing to trace that name to your workplace, your address or even just use your likeness to propagate lies. How many services are there to de-rank unsavory Google results under your name? It's truly better to be safe than sorry.
If you can't stand behind your vote by writing your real name directly on your ballot, what's the point in voting in the first place?
Your identity and standing behind your opinion have no correlation, just like they don't when you vote. History shows that unnecessarily joining them has dangerous consequences, however.
It's been my experience that communication quality has more to do with initial culture, growth rate, and ability to inculcate newcomers to social norms than with naming policies. Of course, the need to grow a community slowly to maintain social norms conflicts with the imperative placed on VC-funded companies to grow as fast as possible.