Anonymity in Online Spaces

Disallowing anonymity is a very brutish way of curbing bad behavior online. But in certain circumstances it makes sense; there are probably particular online spaces where anonymity doesn't add much. Sites like LinkedIn, for example, which are explicitly meant to bind your real-world identity to the internet. Sites that are for discussion, expression, leveraging distributed expertise, etc—as opposed to merely emulating IRL networks and interactions online—use it sloppily, a lame bandage for problems they'd rather not consider with more nuance. Anonymity needs to be appreciated as a unique feature of the internet, adding dimensions to such platforms which significantly distinguish it from the limitations of meatspace.

Using real identities is appealing for a few reasons. The most obvious is that it attaches an IRL identity to online behavior and ideally transfers some of those IRL dimensions which make us less likely to act like assholes to our online activity. For instance, the accountability you have to your social relationships are transfered.

Related to that, it creates continuity in your online behavior by establishing a record of it. In part over time this becomes valuable if only because of the time investment put into it, but it provides an access to past behavior from which future behavior can be (however unreliably) interpreted. So people are less likely to act like assholes because it jeapordizes the possibility of your being allowed to participate in other online communities.

Finally, there's the simple fact that using a real identity can have increased friction to use when compared to anonymous systems. For instance, anonymous commenting systems often make it so easy to post (just type and send, no authentication process to slow you down) that you're likely to get more knee-jerk reactions. The inconvenience of the flow for associating your real identity is often enough to deter these sorts of low-value contributions.