I have a response to your Hubski post, and a response to your Reddit post. They may or may not directly contradict each other. They may also meander into irrelevant territory- I've had a lot of coffee.

To the Hubski post: I disagree to a degree on point (1). I feel like those who don't experience the net as an extension of their lives are actually more likely to unwittingly present a more honest face in online interaction. I don't know whether they devalue honesty per se, but I get the sinking feeling that the people you're talking about are a lot more open and honest in a really ugly way online than they are in real life, purely by virtue of not drawing that link between physical life and digital life. Goes back to the whole Ring of Gyges thing- I've seen a lot of folks on Reddit espousing this notion that morality is a) an entirely social construct, b) as such, malleable, c) not worthy of "rational" consideration and can thereby d) be more or less disregarded online, where free speech can do no wrong, and anything cast up in the name of free speech is worth serious ("serious") consideration. This notion comes out in a variety of ways, be it within the AskReddit format, where grotesque confession is often celebrated; AdviceAnimals, where there's a meme for the specific purpose of airing dirty laundry in a "funny" way; in plain old everyday comments, often those upvoted to the top of the thread, that spout some pretty serious invective; or else whenever there's a much-publicized brouhaha over the outing of some controvertial sub or user (ahem ViolentAcrez). This last one always culminates in widespread discussions/feedback loops on the subject of free speech, where a very vocal, very upvoted contingent argue that if it isn't illegal, it ought to be allowed and even celebrated as part of the Great Digital Tradition. As if legality was the only watermark for socially permissible interaction, and all free speech is noble purely by virtue of being free.

Anyhow, all this is to say: the internet makes our person invisible, and that provides a huge incentive to be more honest in some ways than we might be in real life. For better or worse, I feel like people are much better at expressing themselves as they intend to, and it just turns out that a lot of peoples' intentions are rotten.

I guess this is what I meant about the whole "people being worse online than they are in real life" thing, and it ties nicely into your Reddit post. I don't have a problem with you or anybody demolishing an unworthy post- especially in the instance that the response is calibrated specifically to preempt further useless discussion. I have a problem with people being so gleefully and blithely ugly. And I think there's a big difference there. The ugliness I'm talking about is less academic, more bloody-minded. It's kids calling OP a "faggot" because they heard that's the cool way to respond. It's grown-ass men curating nasty subs simply because it's technically legal. It's prevalent in a million tiny little interactions that, when taken individually mean next to nothing but when taken en masse present such a dour portrait of humanity's secret self that I had to a) devise my own online code of conduct just so I felt like there was no way to even accidentally toe that line and b) eventually abandon Reddit altogether because it just became too pervasive. Maybe that makes me a delicate flower, but I guess I've decided there are worse things to be.

When you get down to it, I'm more for being dishonest in some ways online. Or just more controlled. Or is control in the face of anonymity just another form of dishonesty? Which is why I asked the question in the first place- it's interesting to figure out what kind of dishonest people here are choosing to be, and how that shapes our interactions with each other. On your side, it sounds like you've carefully crafted this narrator that refuses to suffer fools gladly, and deals with foolishness in a way that you, the author, wouldn't in real life. I've gone something of the opposite route, but it's no less dishonest and no better or worse (I hope)- the person I present online is as of now unflinchingly affable; I still dismiss valueless interactions, but I choose to do it by being as respectful as possible and, if met with further disrespect, assume the person I'm talking to just isn't worth talking to, and I stop talking.

One more thing on the note of narrative versus authorial intent- there's a weird tension between your two posts. In one (the Reddit one) you posit that we know more about yesterday's waiter than we do about those we interact with online. And as such, sounds like you're saying that we're a bunch of characters interacting with other characters rather than real people interacting with other real people. e.g. I don't know you at all, so I shouldn't take it personally when kleinbl00 insults fuffle. But in the Hubski post, the implication is that a) you're very good at expressing yourself as you intend to, and thus b) you DO experience the internet as an extension of your life, replete with all the psychological/social bleed-through that entails. Which seems to run in direct contradiction with your Reddit point. How do you jive those two? Or is that what you meant about having come to new conclusions? Or am I missing a vital point?

Anyhow, that's kind of apropos of nothing, just nagging at me.