Oh well, if there's less swearing in youtube comments then it's clearly worth it.

Plus, with more real names then we have less of that uppity anti-establishment talk. That stuff is so annoying when it drowns out my stream of pictures of cats and plates of food.

And history clearly shows us that the only times important works were published pseudonymously those works were attacking their betters and upsetting the status quo. Like these hooligans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_...

I do not feel worried that we will miss out on the next revolution because its manifesto can no longer be written in a YouTube comment.

As long as free expression is legal and there is a free market, there will be an outlet for free, anonymous expression. It just doesn't have to be every single one.

I do think it is reasonable to wonder if real names on YouTube is too restrictive. Yet in the same vein it is ludicrous to confuse the issue with the extreme worry that the US constitution could not be debated in YouTube videos--possibly arguing if LMFAO's Party Rock Anthem should be our bro-national bro-anthem.

Did you really think I was worried that the next constitution wouldn't be debated in youtube comments or was that just to set up your LMFAO joke (which I laughed at)?

I'll speak more plainly just in case it was the former:

Anonymous speech being widespread and common instead of just "available" is extremely important for a healthy society.

Anyone who thinks that removing anonymity is good because it cuts down on curse words is an idiot.

Anyone who doesn't own stock or work for the big players is acting against their own interests for supporting those trying to win the current fight to be the first online identity monopoly, especially since they are both trying to tie them to real names.

Youtube is a great example when using hyperbole because it has famously stupid comments that will not be improved by a reduction in curse words. The other paragraphs were not necessarily about youtube just because it was mentioned in a sarcastic opening comment.

You set it up. I spiked it.

For what it is worth I like this comment more than your previous because it gets to an actual problem. The problem isn't YouTube's editorial choices since there are good competitors; but rathe that there is a limited market of large scale identity providers that many other sites are becoming dependent on.

However I still disagree it is a big problem. It's the same privacy problem of credit cards versus cash. As long as cash is legal and privacy laws are strong enough I think it will be ok. People will make efficient choices depending on the context. Most people don't want anonymity most of the time as it turns out, and those who do can still get it.

I don't know that it's a big problem, but it's the wrong direction to move a free society irrespective of the amount of damage it will do. Maybe it will not end up being a big problem but I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation.

> People will make efficient choices depending on the context

Except they won't and don't. I know it's nitpicky but this kind of economics pseudoscience of rational actors and market utopianism is not based on evidence. It is, in fact, in direct conflict with the evidence. People will choose the option with the best marketing, with very little consideration of their own interests. Anonymity is too far removed from direct consequences for people to make this decision rationally.

That's why setting a strong social norm that anonymity is strongly tied to free speech is important. It's both true and it might be effective since even though most people don't actually want free speech they at least think they do.

I think that anonymity when there is some friction to publication is great. But anonymity + frictionless publication becomes more problematic.

It sounds extreemly draconian to me.

"anti-normative behaviour" is just an extreemly faux-elitist word for what business calls out of the box thinking.

It can be good or it can be bad, but a simple reduction to the mean (which is what it implies) is nearly by definition bad. Societies that are chaotic and disorderly may seem worse of than societies that march in lock-step and where everybody wears the same uniform and everybody is the same, but the latter society is guaranteed never to advance, no matter how far ahead its present state is.

I don't get what you are trying to imply... You do not walk up to people in public and criticize their gender, sexuality, appearance, intelligence, and more just because you do not agree with their opinion. "Anti-normative" is pretty vague but I'm assuming it is covering that subset of things that may not be cursing but are still negative. It seems that you are making the term fit some assumed oppression on society when it's just trying to make people not be dicks.

Some people do.

Some people do wolf-whistle at women, or shout things at them from moving vehicles.

Some people do stare at disabled people; or laugh at the learning disabled, or mock those with facial disfigurement.

Some people do chant abuse at those of a different race or ethnicity.

Some people deny others jobs (or equal pay) because of the sexual preference or gender or disability or race or religion or age of the employee - even though many countries have had anti-discrimination laws for years.

Here's examples of real people, in the real world, with real identities attached ("The licence plate was ..." or "the company was...") with real penalties attached (sometimes) and yet these people are still being dicks.

I'm not convinced that asking someone to pick a realistic sounding name is going to stop someone from being a dick.

The whole point of the research is that it cuts down this behavior by 30%. Seems pretty good.

In the context of social interactions, "anti-normative behavior" is academic speak for being a dick.

But at what cost?

/dramatic

There is no way in hell that I would swap swearing for discussion of edge case politics, ethics, or philosophy.

Even when throwing around 'devil's advocate' stuff, people get scared when there are potential ramifications for what they said. Often it doesn't come out.