Hiku said:
Aeolus451 said:
The whole point of a like/dislike feature is being able to conveniently agree anonymously. It's needed for controversial posts.
Instead of like system, why not go with "I agree" and "I disagree"? |
The worlds most famous Like system (Facebook) is not anonymous. It's definitely not the whole point of a system like that.
The primary reason for it is to "effortlessly" show support or agreeance with a comment, and compile them all in one place for convenience. Anonymity is a separate aspect.
Aeolus451 said:
Anonymity allows for true honesty. The vast majority of people won't be honest if they know that they'll be persecuted for agreeing with a person who expressed a dissenting opinion. It's one of the reasons why we protect the identity of voters and who they voted for from being public.
We can agree to disagree on a dislike option.
|
And it allows for more dishonesty, which tends to be the bigger problem on sites like these.
Maybe I think a certain athlete that plays for an opposing team is very good, and would never claim otherwise. But I see a post nitpicking on his mistakes, ridiculing, and making him out to be far worse than he obviously is.
Obviously this is done to troll the fans of this team or the athlete in a dishonest way, rather than express one's honest opinion about him. Hitting "Like" on that comment, even when you KNOW it's not true, just to troll a fanbase, is that true honesty?
Definitely not. Because the intention of the like differs from the context of the actual post. Instead the "like" is falsely validating an opinion you don't actually agree with.
Are there times when anonymity could prompt a person to genuinely support a post they normally wouldn't? Sure.
But trolling and instigating are far more of a problem on sites like these than having an opinion you're too ashamed to acknowledge openly. (And often times there can be a good reason for that.)
There is a good reason for why we generally put more value behind opinions in our society when someone can put their name behind them.
To be honest, if there were people here who for example support a rather hateful ideology, I'd rather they stand for it than them "highfiving" each other anonymously, just to send a hateful message to certain groups.
To summarize, there are some positives with anonymity, but they're far outweighed by the negatives due to the nature of the internet. Trolling and instigating are more of a problem on sites like these, that moderators ultimately have to deal with.
If you want to come out about something you're not comfortable sharing here, there are usually forums and support groups for that elsewhere. But let's not make it easier to instigate on VGCZ.
|
Wrong. It allows absolute honesty when people can agree/speak openly without consequences. That happen when a witch hunt party has a list of names. Again, the only reason why someone would want no anonymity online is so they can hunt down anyone who's offensive, has a dissenting opinion/guilty of wrong think, etc in order to punish them and dissuade others from being open about what they think. It's authoritarian and will always bite you in the ass.
