There's something great about enforced anonymity. It gets rid of people saying what they think they should say, and instead simply what they think.
It reminds one of the wisdom of the masses experiments. If you take a bunch of people and ask them how many peas are in a jar, the average will come out extremely close to the right answer. But if you let those people collaborate, debate, and try to pick the smartest answer - it tends to be far less accurate.
It's part of the reason that I think decentralize everything is the way to go. You'll never reach the utopic highs that a perfect centralization might offer, but you'll also never reach the dystopic lows that a flawed centralization can impose.
> There's something great about enforced anonymity. It gets rid of people saying what they think they should say, and instead simply what they think.
No it absolutely does not. It enables people to hold whatever positions are immediately expedient regardless of personal beliefs. There is no way to call an anonymous person a hypocrite when you cannot connect their directly contradictory statements due to their anonymity. 4chan is a perfect example of group think overriding other opinions.
And does calling a person a hypocrite make them go 'Oh gosh, you're right. Let me immediately change my opinion.'? No, even the most justified ad hominem does nothing more than encouraging self censorship, which is completely contrary to what's desired when the goal is to understand what people truly think and believe.
Humans are not consistent. We hold conflicting views, and in a decade we'll think a good chunk of what we believe today is idiotic. It's all fine and normal.
I would also add that in many cases claims of hypocrisy are themselves somewhat disingenuous, because scarce (and perhaps even undesirable) is the human that holds any given view as absolute dogma. We all hold views and values on a spectrum. For instance utilitarianism and taking the 'intuitive' solution to the trolley problem are not mutually exclusive, because one's adoption of utilitarianism is often of the nature of simply generally preferring utilitarian solutions, rather treating it as the be all, end all, of decision making.
So what? Hypocrisy is part of the human condition. We can only rid ourselves of it by actually expressing and exploring our true beliefs and reflecting on them in the context of our actions. Carefully curating a public image to match what the blob expects doesn't assist in that at all.
It reminds one of the wisdom of the masses experiments. If you take a bunch of people and ask them how many peas are in a jar, the average will come out extremely close to the right answer. But if you let those people collaborate, debate, and try to pick the smartest answer - it tends to be far less accurate.
It's part of the reason that I think decentralize everything is the way to go. You'll never reach the utopic highs that a perfect centralization might offer, but you'll also never reach the dystopic lows that a flawed centralization can impose.