Han van der Maas | What should you do with anonymous commenters?
Anonymous commenting leads to an enormous amount of trash under articles and on social media, as columnist Han van der Maas also observes on Folia. “I don’t need to know what Tim, tim, UvA employee, and another UvA employee think if they’re not willing to attach their names to their opinions.”
In the study of polarization, there is no shortage of explanations. These concern various interacting mechanisms. Examples include confirmation bias, communication with only like-minded individuals, in-group/out-group thinking, and media focus on extreme viewpoints. It is also clear that while polarization is as old as time, it has acquired a new dynamic in the online world.
What is lacking are solutions. Polarization is like a jack-in-the-box — once it’s out, you can’t just stuff it back in. I’d like to discuss a possible solution here, one that is also relevant to Folia. According to my own as yet unpublished mathematical model of polarization — and I’m holding myself back from sharing the formulas here — restraint is crucial for depolarization.
This restraint may have a metacognitive basis, such as acknowledgment of a lack of expertise, but it may also stem from social factors, like shame. My assumption is that much of the problem of polarization in the online world stems from a lack of restraint, reluctance and caution, precisely because most participants in online debates are anonymous.
The best solution might be to ban anonymity on the internet altogether, but that would conflict with other interests, such as freedom of expression. A middle ground would be to allow users to block anonymous messages. I don’t need to know what “Tim,” “tim,” “UvA staff member,” or “another UvA staff member” think if they’re unwilling to share their real names. I honestly can’t recall ever contributing to a public forum — not even on a bathroom wall — without signing my real name. That might be liberating for some, but to me it feels unacceptable.
Still, there are degrees to this. In the past, Folia commenters were completely anonymous. These days, a verified email address from a Dutch academic or educational institution is required. According to the editors, this policy already leads to far fewer extreme reactions. Personally, I would like to have the option — on every social media platform — to automatically block fully anonymous messages. That would mean blocking accounts for which no one can trace a real identity. That would also conveniently filter out all bots. But I’d also like the option to block anyone who refuses to reveal their identity to me.
Of course, there’s the risk that certain voices won’t be heard anymore. But right now, platforms like Twitter are collapsing under a tidal wave of anonymous extremist opinions. There is no restraint, no dialogue, no curiosity about others’ views. I also don’t share the fear of consequences that might come from not being anonymous. Folia occasionally receives requests to publish opinion pieces anonymously. I don’t think that’s wise. Honestly, being a Folia columnist is not particularly dangerous. In over 40 years of publishing opinion pieces here and there, I’ve never experienced anything seriously unpleasant. Then again, I am a rather boring ‘middle of the road’ columnist. Much respect, though, to left-leaning women in particular who share their opinions under their real names and have to deal with anonymous abuse and threats. But they too would benefit from the option to block anonymous messages. Every social media service — including Folia — should offer that option.
