Deindividuation is certainly one of the consequences of internet anonymity. I've actually been writing for several months an article about this problem that I mean to put on my blog. I don't know if I will ever finish it.
I call the whole problem the Philodox Effect. I identify it as being the collection of a series of conditions that are often met in the internet medium that lead to excessive aggressive behavior sourced by an exaggerated opinion of one's opinions and ideas. The most notable being:
- The lack of accountability generated by internet anonymity.
- The human natural tendency for affirmation as well as a desire for validation.
- The written word as a difficult medium to master.
- The overly simplified nature of reply boxes and voting mechanisms.
Of the three major ones above, I think of the latter as the most instrumental of them all. The "Like/Dislike" mechanism present on so many places, invites any discussion to concentrate on two opposite poles, often leading individuals to extreme their positions so they can fit in any of these diametrically opposite sides.
Additionally, in speech it is often demonstrated a lack of ability to separate between having an opinion and wanting that opinion to be accepted by others. The latter is given priority because of our usually innate desire for validation, often reducing any debate not to the discussion of the idea or opinion itself, but to clearly formulated opinions on the opinion or idea. The Like/Dislike behavioral pattern induced by many sites almost completely removes any possibility an opinion, idea of fact may be discussed for what it is. It's a clear invitation to discuss how we feel about said opinion, idea or fact.
Similarly reply boxes often invite to the radicalization of speech. Most subject matters are complex subject matters, having many shades of gray in between. However to express these it takes time, frequent pauses, effort and a considerable amount of text (it's been now more or less an hour since I started writing this post). Reply box are oftentimes small and even limited in the number of characters one can write. This gives little room to express opinions or ideas that require more elaborate thought. In addition the general usage patterns on the internet reflect a desire for short and immediate behavior (there's too many messages to reply, browsers need to be fast, bla bla bla, too much text is usually frowned upon, etc.). Reply boxes in blogs or comment boxes in news sites are an invitation to sketchy speech or to speech that requires amplifying one's stance so it becomes more evident. Hyperbole is an effective means of conveying meaning with less effort and by no means is it always used consciously.
Increase the size of the reply box, try to remove social engineering mechanisms like the "Like/Dislike", and refurbish the UI to give it a look and feel of an area of debate and you effectively reduced or eliminated the Philodox Effect. It's not by chance that forums, for instance, aren't so inviting to the behavior you see so often on comments boxes elsewhere. Naturally there's some tending that needs to be done, but generally speaking the medium by which ideas are expressed has a strong influence in how those ideas will be expressed.
The internet has unfortunately moved into this like-dislike false dichotomy. In addition, news sites offer comment boxes, not because they are places of debate and opinion expressing, but because they are one more mechanism to induce repeat visiting and, consequently, ad money. Some of these comment areas aren't even monitored.
