Since discussions on various topics occur every day on the Internet, some people believe that “constructive discussions cannot be carried out on the anonymous Internet, so real names should be required on the Internet.” However, a study analyzed discussions that occurred in three stages: “complete anonymity”, “Anonymity associated with a specific account” and “Full identification”, the most constructive discussions were found to occur in “Full identification”. I know this is not a real-name environment.
Deliberation and identity rules: 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 more civil environment than real usernames
https://theconversation.com/online-anonymity-study-found-stable-pseudonyms-created-a-more-civil-environment-than-real-user-names-171374
Anonymity on the Internet is valuable because it allows people to speak freely without fear of social or legal discrimination. For example, even if you belong to a religious group that oppresses sexual minorities, you can speak anonymously about your gender identity without fear.
On the other hand, some say that the anonymity of the Internet has a negative impact on the space for speech, as it is possible to abuse anonymity and use abusive language or defame others from a safe distance. It has also been pointed out that anonymous spaces make it difficult to have civilized and constructive discussions because people can say whatever they want without it affecting their real lives.
A research team consists of
Alfred Moore, Lecturer in Political Science York University A British study examined online media from January 2013 to February 2015 to examine the extent to which anonymity affects the quality of discussion.We analyzed approximately 45 million reviews Huffington Post (now Huffington Post) News articles.
During the period of this study, the Huffington Post changed from a state where “anyone can anonymously write comments in the article comment area (a fully anonymous system)” to a state where “anyone can use an account to anonymously write comments.” Registration system (registration anonymous system) “”, and eventually became “a state where you can use your Facebook account to write comments, this is a real-name SNS (complete real-name system)”.
First, under “Full Anonymous” status, users blocked by moderators can immediately change their names and post comments.
Therefore, The Huffington Post launched an account authentication system using Facebook accounts. So while comments on articles can be posted anonymously, the platform now recognizes individual accounts and users will be unable to create another account if they are blocked for offensive behavior. .
Eventually, the Huffington Post outsourced its commenting system to Facebook, and usernames on the Huffington Post were replaced with the real names of Facebook accounts. In other words, by examining the quality of comments in these three stages, we can judge whether high-quality discussions are conducted under the conditions of “complete anonymity”, “registered anonymity”, and “complete real-name”. . that’s why.
The analysis found that when the system transitioned from “full anonymity” to “registered anonymity,” the use of abusive and offensive language decreased significantly. Moore likened the discovery to “
The broken windows theory holds that fighting petty crime can reduce major crime, explaining that making the environment cleaner will improve everyone’s behavior.
Additionally, we analyzed characteristics of individual comments such as word length, words indicating causal relationships (e.g., “because”) and words indicating tentative conclusions (e.g., “maybe”), and analyzed “cognitive complexity.” ‘ per comment. ” is measured. It is known that the cognitive complexity of comments is a good indicator of meeting quality, although it cannot determine the context in which each comment occurs.
When examining changes in the cognitive complexity of comments, we found that comment quality was highest during the “registered for anonymity” stage, while discussion quality improved significantly after moving from “complete anonymity” to “complete anonymity”. Results show that the situation has improved. However, when they moved from a “registered anonymous system” to a “complete real-name system”, the quality of comments dropped. This result contradicts the idea that removing anonymity from the Internet space and moving towards real names will enable high-quality discussion.
The mechanism by which review quality is highest under “registered anonymity” is unclear, but Moore said, “One possibility is that under fixed pseudonyms, users serve primarily as an audience of “fellow reviewers.” And, as has been the case on other platforms, As suggested, they may be more concerned about their reputation in the forum, and in a real-name environment, this dynamic “what you say may change when you leave a comment” seems reasonable. Not only other Huffin Readers of The Post can see it, and so can your Facebook friends.
Moore pointed out that what matters is not whether the user is anonymous or has a real name, but whether the user is invested in their “persona” and takes responsibility for their actions on a specific forum. Even if users don’t use their real names, if each user is linked to an account and their reputations rise and fall with other comments and actions, there’s potential for polite and constructive comments to increase. this is possible.