From the article: Anonymous forums can also be remarkably self-regulating: we tend to discount anonymous or pseudonymous comments to a much larger degree than commentary from other, more easily identifiable sources. In a 2012 study of anonymity in computer interactions, researchers found that, while anonymous comments were more likely to be contrarian and extreme than non-anonymous ones, they were also far less likely to change a subject’s opinion on an ethical issue, echoing earlier results from the University of Arizona. In fact, as the Stanford computer scientist Michael Bernstein found when he analyzed the /b/ board of 4chan, an online discussion forum that has been referred to as the Internet’s “rude, raunchy underbelly” and where over ninety per cent of posts are wholly anonymous, mechanisms spontaneously emerged to monitor user interactions and establish a commenter’s status as more or less influential—and credible. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of...e-comments No doubt that being contrarian comes easier when we are ''anonymous.'' According to the article, anonymous comments are less likely to change someone's mind over an ethical issue (than if you're discussing the issue in person) and face to face interactions are far more emotionally rewarding, than online discussions. I can see that. Thoughts?