Agreed that accountability and bad behavior would be an issue if everything was fully anonymous. I definitely wouldn’t be in favor of any sort of full anonymity. Moreso some very surface level version, to try to give people a chance to assess things without preconceived notions. If you could click on the author and see who is was it really wouldn’t incentivize more bad behavior (I think).
I feel more neutral about your point about outsiders respecting the status staking because I don’t think there are many “swing voters” spending time on the forum nor do I think public names would be the make or break for the majority of those people. But this response from me is complete speculation and ultimately we would have to see the data.
For me it isn’t an issue of credit, it’s an issue of accountability. It’s easy to write fringy or even harmful things when you’re anonymous.
I also think EA is likely to be taken more seriously if outsiders see that EAs are willing to stake their real-world status on their comments.
I don’t really see an issue with an optional add-on (on the reader side), but I think it’s important that names are relatively easily viewable.
Agreed that accountability and bad behavior would be an issue if everything was fully anonymous. I definitely wouldn’t be in favor of any sort of full anonymity. Moreso some very surface level version, to try to give people a chance to assess things without preconceived notions. If you could click on the author and see who is was it really wouldn’t incentivize more bad behavior (I think).
I feel more neutral about your point about outsiders respecting the status staking because I don’t think there are many “swing voters” spending time on the forum nor do I think public names would be the make or break for the majority of those people. But this response from me is complete speculation and ultimately we would have to see the data.
I think curious looks from the outside will grow the more people, money, and power the movement has access to. But otherwise I mostly agree.