Henlo frens
I was invited here to continue a discussion that started like this:
>Anonimity allows absolute freedom of expression, but having a reputation that follows you forces posters not to be jerks lest they get blocked/ignored by eberryone. And in my experience it doesn't end up as the Twitter safe space echochamber model, as people who disagree keep interacting together (most people who asked me to post were people I hated and who hated me) as long as they both argue in good faith.
>Social-media mindset, as you yourself impugned to others. (Ie, a Pozz AF fallacy.)
>Daily reminder that not everyone is a neighborish a*rsehole. And if someone wants to ((( block ))) you, what do you care? Was their updoot really all that important in the first place? Far better to argue your position in good faith/conscience, then let the chips fall where they may.
>Having a reputation doesn't systematically lead to the cancer that plagues modern social media, as evidenced by the pre-2010 web on forums, warez scenes, etc.
>It's my personal opinion that it is the reputation that prevents people online from trolling and cacaposting all the time as is the case on most (though not all) anonymous communities. Maybe you see a different explanation ? I'd love to get your perspective on that, I'm tempted to think you're not totally against forms of reputation since you seem to find merit in namehobging.
>Oh, I have very specific explanations as to why. Out of respect for the wonderful /comfy/ board however, I'll restrain myself ITT. If you'd like to join us over in our /robowaifu/ /meta bread, then I'll be happy to explain just that.