I think everyone here is missing the point of moot's comment. I read this as commentary on anonymity and honest discussion.<p>Ignore YouTube and 4chan's /b/ board for the moment. If you look at some of the communities at reddit, for instance, there are subjects that are discussed thorougly which would never see the light of day if their authors had to appear before their friends with their full name and picture. Some of these discussions have shed light on parts of humanity and human nature that I would have never known about if it wasn't for anonymous internet forums. For instance interviews with psychopaths and murderers, mean stories about ex-girlfriends and boyfriends, candid and unpainted interviews with sex workers etc etc etc. In general, the stuff that doesn't come up in polite conversation and everyone pretends not to be associated with. Some of these discussions have changed my views on both political issues and more mundane things. All because someone is suddenly allowed to broadcast forbidden stories to a large crowd. And people are allowed to comment on it without fear of being judged or socially persecuted.<p>The difference in the style of comments on Facebook and reddit perfectly exemplify what happens with civil discussion when people are allowed to be anonymous, and the huge difference in behavior and mindset that this causes in Western society. It is a pretty big deal.
I have <i>never</i> left a Facebook comment on a third party site.<p>Partially this is due to inconvenience, (the web browser with my Facebook login credentials has always had its own VM, to prevent like button tracking) and partially because associating my real name and identity with a blog comment seems like using a cannon to kill a squirrel. If Samuel Bierwagen wants to say something about an issue, he'll write an essay about it; but rolling out my name and my face for a TechCrunch comment just ain't going to happen.
Why choose? There are times I want to be anonymous, partially anonymous, totally identified. Sometimes I want to be in an uncivil discussion -- sometimes public, sometimes private. Sometimes moderated, sometimes not. Sometimes sterile, sometimes provocative.<p>Right now, the Internet is perfect for this -- pretty much any kind of "community" I want to be in exists, and I participate in the ones I want to, following the mores established there.
I've actually found that the 'promoted' comments [Edit: which I assume are promoted by voting and algorithm.] on YouTube videos are generally either pretty entertaining or informative. I was surprised by this after consciously completely ignoring YT comments for a long time.
Mostly it's the people, and only to some degree the technology that impacts the quality of discussions/comments. I.E., 13 year olds on Youtube or XBox vs. working professionals on a site like Quora or Hackernews.<p>I like how Quora mixes real names and anonymity to try to get the best of both worlds. Google Knol I think supported this, too, but it's a ghost town.<p>Anon advantages (think Reddit):
* people are more honest, about negative reactions at least
* humor works (doesn't really work on facebook)
* more comfortable to discuss sensitive or embarrassing issues<p>Real name advantages (think Quora, Google+, some twitterers):
* more constructive dialog
* you can know more about the background of a person contributing - their experience, qualifications, or conflicts of interest
I wish there were more proactive comments on newspaper websites. I think communities everywhere are missing out on a great opportunity to communicate, exchange ideas, and bring real change to real problems in their own towns. Most of the time newspaper comments (in my community) are about how illegal immigration is to blame for EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING.<p>Commenters tend to rally behind the bully and pick on anyone who has a different point of view. Most of the time a reply to a different point of view starts of by first insulting the commenter and then explaining why they are wrong about everything.<p>Funny how we never leave high school....<p>(I work for a newspaper... )
I m used to Youtube comments being very rude and viscious often. It doesnt demand real users like Facebook argues it does, so i think you can have people say things they repress. I ve read some of the nastiest stuff on the comments. The majority of them I find are on something to do with popular culture as I think its a metter who is cool. So they swear alot.<p>About topics like Religion it is obvious well known fact it will provoke that.<p>I think it shows us what some people really think and whata negative effect of unregulated users can cause. So a thing i appreciate of Facebook valueing real users but yutube on the other hand has great content.<p>another difference is that facebook comments are limited in users and youtube , where a video has millions of views, your comments will most likely be seen by more.<p>Also there is no necissity to be friends on youtube with the commentator or video creater to make posts. So anyone can insult without any real consquences. Maybe you must add the video creator if you wanna post videos, only fans or constructive critics would come as the negative users will be easier traceable. I would not post something to a facebook friend like some do on youtube as ill be shunned.<p>So the users actually inddirectly monitor such ations. remember private pyle in the army in full metal jacket when he steals the donouts and they soap bar him. Like that but chilled.
Personally, I find that the quality of Youtube comments varies with the content of the video. Some users post videos that always lead to excellent discussion. I think the quality of Youtube comments reflects the quality of the content, more than anything else.<p>Why else would Facebook comments be so bad and sterile? Facebook's content consists mainly of more narcissistic fluff than even a beauty magazine could contain.
I agree entirely. Sites like Youtube and Yahoo! Answers have been maligned in the past couple years with the rise of sites like Quora and Google Plus, but to me, the interaction on Youtube feels a lot more human and authentic than on the other sites. You don't even have to build it up into a whole thing about free speech. It's just that there's something about those communities, perhaps the anonymity, that allows people to be less guarded and it gives you a stronger sense of community.
I think the big sticking point here (outside of the fact that most opponents of anonymity have something to gain by knowing our real identity) is that we put too much emphasis on "paying dues". We're used to having a "platform" (TV, radio, magazines, etc), and only the "best" people having access to that "platform", access being granted because of a long CV of past accomplishments. It is important to know that because you are right once, you aren't always right; people can get undeserved respect in this situation.<p>Now, with the Internet, everyone has a "platform". Everyone has ideas, and some of these ideas are good, despite them coming from unknown people. Steve Jobs still had a knack for design and business savvy before founding Apple, right? But we wouldn't know that. No one wants to filter through everything and think for themselves (the gatekeepers of the "platform" used to do that for us). We want to be able to point to a name and say "I agree with that person, because that person is great." How many stories get posted on HN just because of who wrote them? <i>ahem</i> Would HN care if someone else had said the same exact thing as Moot? Or is this just a gossip site and we only care what our celebrities have to say?<p>Anonymity puts everyone on a level playing field, and thus we actually have to evaluate everyone's ideas and think for ourselves which ones are good and which aren't - and there are too many out there to count because <i>everyone</i> has access to this "platform". We shouldn't care about who writes comments, we should care about the diamonds in the rough, because a good idea or a good comment is good, no matter who says it.
What does "Sign in with Twitter to contribute" mean? Does that mean I get to contribute to the <i>discussion</i> by posting a reply if I sign in with Twitter? That's what "contribute" means to me, but it seems unlikely, especially given the relative paucity of posts in this discussion.<p>I wouldn't bother making a comment here to ask; normally I would just sign in and see for myself. But this app wants permission to make posts to my Twitter account, and I never, <i>ever</i> do that. (I <i>hate</i> it when I sign up for something and I later find a post in my timeline that says "A-hyuk hyuk, I just joined SomeSkeezyWebsite and I'm having a blast, LOL!")
One of the best things I ever did was Adblock Youtube comments.<p><pre><code> www.youtube.com##DIV[id="comments-view"][class=" reactions-enabled"]
www.youtube.com##DIV[id="comments-view"][class=" disallow-ratings reactions-enabled"]</code></pre>
One score and twice four years ago (more or less) some guys brought forth a few modems, that they screwed to computers, which then conceived Usenet in liberty, dedicated to the proposition that on the net nobody knows you're an ass (unless you make it painfully clear yourself).<p>Thus came B1FF@PSUVM to roam the land of newsgroups, whence comp.sources circulated programs, rec.sf-lovers hosted epic flame-wars apropos nothing much, and alt.sex (ably assisted by alt.sex.anal) told tales titillating the prurient interest of the readership.<p>Since then we have learned nothing much, which is why Google is climbing up its own ass chasing the social butterfly, and there are pundits like Shirky milking this tired teat over and over.<p>A no-prize to whoever brings back the kill-file that was feature #1 in Usenet readers. Not to mention decent threading with color-coding of postings read, but I suppose that's too much to ask in today's morass of PHP BBs with twitching avatars and stupefying 'emoji'. Ah well.