Thread:Double Slap/@comment-3017217-20150625141131/@comment-4091261-20161213055512

The entire purpose of being anonymous is to prevent an attack on your individual credibility.

For example, if I create an uneducated comment on a topic while being anonymous, people will believe the person who created the comment is stupid. I can make another comment that is educated due to the previous comment and people will believe the person who created the comment is smart. However, nobody would be able to tell that both of the comments were made by the same person.

If there is any kind of identifier for two comments being by the same person, I doubt that could be considered anonymous at all. The only barrier left is the seperation from your physical self and virtual self.

From reading the abstract, I can tell that the experiment captures very well the trust people have for those who reveal who they are. However, I don't think it captures the latter opinions when people place actions on a person's identity.

Ethos is one of the three main rhetorical pieces of an argument and shows with how people respond to others based on their previous actions. It's almost like inertia for personality. People find it easier to continue to like what they liked and easier to hate what they hated. Those who stress anonymity for safety is possibly refering to the fear of obtaining a bad reputation as it would be difficult to recover from.

My personal belief is that the caution is an irrational thought that belittles the credibility of anonymous users. Since man is more comfortable to do bad things when he is anonymous, as Plato said in the beginning of that article, he does it. As such, a trend of people doing bad things when they are anonymous ruins its overall credibility as a title and bolsters the fear of presenting individuality on the internet.

This is a random thought to have. Is there context for why you presented it in this particular thread?