As debates arise on the Internet every day about various topics, some argue that “constructive discussion is not possible on the anonymous Internet, so real names should be required on the Internet.” However, there are three stages. A study was published that analyzed the discussions that took place separately. : “Complete anonymity,” “anonymity associated with a specific account,” and “full real name” found that “full real name” had the most constructive discussion. . I know it wasn’t a real name environment.
Rules of deliberation and identity: The impact of anonymity, pseudonymity, and real name requirements on the cognitive complexity of online news comments – Alfred Moore, Rolf Fredheim, Dominik Wyss, Simon Beste, 2021
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0032321719891385 
Online anonymity: Study finds ‘stable pseudonyms’ create a more civil environment than real usernames
https://theconversation.com/online-anonymity-study-found-stable-pseudononyms-created-a-more-civil-environment-than-real-user-names-171374
Anonymity on the Internet is valuable because it allows people to speak out without fear of social or legal discrimination. For example, even if you belong to a religious community that oppresses sexual minorities, you can speak anonymously about your gender identity without fear.
On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the anonymity of the Internet has a negative impact on the speech space, as it is possible for people to misuse this anonymity to abuse or slander others from a safe distance. It has also been pointed out that anonymous spaces make it difficult to have civil and constructive discussions, as people can say whatever they want without affecting their real lives.
A research team led by
Alfred Moore, Lecturer in Political Science york university In the UK, we conducted a survey of online media between January 2013 and February 2015 to examine the extent to which anonymity affects the quality of discussion.Approximately 45 million comments analyzed Huffington Post (now HuffPost) News article.
During this research period, Huffington Post changed from “a state in which anyone could write comments anonymously in the comment section of articles (completely anonymous system)” to “a state in which anyone with an account could write comments anonymously.” . Registration system (registration anonymous system)”, and finally it became “a state where you can write comments using your real name SNS Facebook account (complete real name system)”.
First, in the “fully anonymous” state, users blocked by moderators can immediately change their name and post comments.
Therefore, Huffington Post has introduced an account authentication system that uses Facebook accounts. As a result, while comments on articles can be posted anonymously, the platform will be able to identify an individual’s account and will not be able to create another account if a user is blocked for offensive behavior. .
Eventually, HuffPost outsourced its comment system itself to Facebook, and usernames on HuffPost were replaced with real names from Facebook accounts. In other words, by examining the quality of comments at these three levels, it is possible to determine whether a high-quality discussion is taking place in “completely anonymous”, “registered anonymous”, or “completely real name”. . that’s why.
The analysis found that the use of profanity and offensive language decreased significantly when the system moved from “full anonymity” to “registered anonymity,” a finding Moore called ”
The ‘Broken Windows Theory’ suggests that cracking down on minor crimes can reduce major crimes, and explains that cleaning up the environment improves everyone’s behavior.
Furthermore, we analyzed characteristics such as word length, words that indicate causal relationships (such as “because”), and words that indicate tentative conclusions (such as “probably”) in individual comments, and analyzed their “cognitive complexity.” Masu. ” for each comment. ‘ was measured. Although the cognitive complexity of comments is known to be a good indicator of meeting quality, it is not possible to determine the context in which each comment occurred.
When we examined changes in the cognitive complexity of comments, we found that the quality of comments was highest during the “registered anonymous” stage, and that the quality of discussions improved significantly after moving from “completely anonymous”. It was shown that there was an improvement. However, the quality of comments deteriorated when we moved from an “registered anonymous system” to a “full real name system.” This result contradicts the idea that “eliminating anonymity from the Internet space and using real names will enable high-quality discussions.”
Although the mechanism by which the quality of comments is highest under “registered anonymity” is unclear, Moore said, “One possibility is that under a fixed pseudonym, users primarily “It functions as an audience for commentators.” And while they will likely be more concerned about their reputation within the forum, as has been suggested on other platforms, in a real-name environment, this dynamic of “commenting and potentially changing what you say” is “Plausible” will be visible to other HuffPost readers as well as your Facebook friends.
What matters, Moore points out, is not whether users are anonymous or real-name, but whether they are immersed in their own “persona” and take responsibility for their actions on a particular forum. Even if users do not use their real names, if each user is linked to a single account and their ratings rise and fall in conjunction with other comments and actions, polite and constructive comments may increase. It’s possible.
