Given the political climate we're in and the complete intolerance to anything but the most milquetoast pablum in Silicon Valley these days, it's a brave or foolish person who posts anything online under their real name these days.
It's a toxic race for attention and engagement to either a.) generate revenue, b.) acquire some taste of "fame", or c.) both. Being anonymous plays a role in some corners of the internet, but the ones that are contributing the most to the cultures you mention above don't depend on anonymity. They're being perpetuated and propped up by very knowable online identities, and I highly doubt the folks doing the propping think they're safely anonymous.
Give a person a mask and he'll tell you the truth, and all that.
Rather, give a person a mask and they'll tell you whatever will most further their own goals, be it truth or falsehood. If only the complete absence of accountability were sufficient to ensure truth.
Bluntness may not be likeable, but you can often learn something useful from it, even if it feels offensive.
Majority of times it is euphemism for "insulting by making untrue statements, literally lying to get back at someone, exaggerate to vent own negative emotions".
Truth is a rare and important commodity, much like gold is. You would not throw away a mineral that has "only" a few per cent gold as useless, only because non-gold forms the bulk of it.
My point is, being jerk should not be equated with truth and people who are not jerks pretty often don't lie.
My point is, the most valuable insights regarding myself and my behavior came from people who were willing to be blunt with me. I would be a worse person today if I never heard some of the observations that made me swallow hard and even get angry.
Having this attached to your name may cost you a job one day.
> "But merely 'branding anonymity as bad' isn't going to stop the cyberbullying misogynists." You are correct, which is why the spokesperson for this crisis is Amanda Hess. No one is trying to stop cyberbullies, there's no point, they don't shop and no one wants to look at them. Hess has entirely misunderstood what the medium wants. The whole game is to get women-- not the cyberbullies, not criminals, but the consumers-- to voluntarily give up all of their privacy, while paying lip service to privacy at home-- knowing full well women that women will pay money not to have the kind of privacy they have at home. Voluntarily exposing yourself makes you a targetable consumer and targetable consumable. Is it worth it?
https://web.archive.org/web/20200420063821/https://thelastps...
Notice I use my real name here on this website. Not a pseudonym. Whatever I say here, I would say to you in front of your face. Same as I do on Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and the other areas I post. I've always used my real name. I'll always use my real name.
We don't require anyone to take responsibility for what they say, so they say anything they want. Combine with this an entire zeitgeist of people who feel disconnected and alone, and its a recipe for attention-seeking behavior.
And on the converse, sometimes its taken too far, with people losing their jobs for things that clearly meant in jest (Justine Sacco) or for clumsily worded communication. Call-out culture needs to die. SJW culture needs to die. One-up culture needs to die. We have to start giving people the benefit of the doubt.