On March 2, 2025, Tako invited 8 debaters on the platform to share their views on the following topic in Tako's "Human Melon-Eating Manual" circle (https://t.co/FO9m1XbSTp), resulting in a lively discussion!
**Pro Position:** Anonymity lowers social barriers and helps marginalized groups voice their opinions
**Con Position:** Anonymity condones human malice and accelerates the spread of false information
**Pro Guests:**
@CryptoAmandaL / @Gink5814 / @mirrorzk / @EEEEdison1992
**Con Guests:**
@0xbfun / @Hutflow / @QFbrc20_66 / @_0xSea_
Thanks again to all the debaters for their active participation, which also sparked a lot of UGC discussions within the community!
Below is a summary of the sub-topics of this debate. Come see if you were convinced by one side!
**Topic 1:** Can anonymity lower social barriers and help marginalized groups voice their opinions?
**Amanda @CryptoAmandaL (Pro)**
She stated that anonymity can break identity constraints, allowing vulnerable or marginalized groups to speak out without being silenced due to factors like gender or social status.
For example, sexual minorities and women are more willing to share sensitive topics like workplace sexual harassment and domestic violence in anonymous environments; communities like "r/TwoXChromosomes" provide safe spaces for voicing concerns.
**Conclusion:** Anonymity reduces social anxiety and gives more people equal opportunities to express themselves.
**Yali @0xbfun (Con)**
He questioned whether anonymous environments truly help vulnerable groups: if the online atmosphere itself is poor, anonymity is of no help and may even lead them to continue "hiding".
He believes the fundamental issue lies in community culture rather than whether it is anonymous or not.
**Amanda @CryptoAmandaL (Pro) Responds**
Anonymity is not the root of the problem; with appropriate regulation, malicious behavior can be curtailed. In contrast, the threats of discrimination in real-name environments are often greater, making it harder for the weak to speak out. She countered, "Are marginalized groups freer without anonymity?" arguing that anonymity is precisely their "safe haven".
**Topic 2:** Anonymity and "human malice," rumors, and the authenticity of information.
**Amanda @CryptoAmandaL (Pro)**
She emphasized that rumors and malice are not unique to anonymity; false information also exists in real-name environments. The MeToo movement relied on anonymous reports, which brought many truths to light.
She believes that the focus should be on content regulation or review rather than a blanket ban on anonymity.
**Yali @0xbfun (Con)**
He repeatedly stated, "Anonymity does not control malice; human nature goes rampant," arguing that the inability to trace a large number of trolls and rumors will drown the community in negativity.
He suggested improvements like "AI patrols" or "online courts," but still insists that "simple anonymity" is more likely to lead to a collapse of trust.
**Confrontation between Amanda and the Con Position**
Amanda rebutted the claim that the spread of rumors can be solely attributed to anonymity, stating that false information can emerge in real-name environments as well. She is more concerned with "how to manage" rather than "where anonymity goes wrong".
**Topic 3:** The impact of anonymity on UGC ecology and the sustainable development of social platforms.
**0xSea @_0xSea_**
He expressed a clear view that "anonymity will definitely die": successful social/community products often rely on "healthy relational chains" and positive UGC, requiring IDs to accumulate followers and content.
He pointed out that mainstream social platforms like Facebook and WeChat succeed due to the scale effect of real-name relationships; complete anonymity cannot accumulate valuable content or form follower or relational chains.
He emphasized that pseudonyms can be considered "semi-real-name"; as long as there is a consistent identifiable ID, credit can be established. If everyone is purely anonymous, it is impossible to accumulate reputation and content.
He believes a good community needs traceable IDs to ensure the continuous production and dissemination of high-quality UGC.
**Amanda @CryptoAmandaL (Pro)**
Responded: We cannot dismiss the value of anonymity based on the worst-case scenarios.
Anonymity can be supplemented with technical and regulatory management to meet the needs of specific users. She also cited that many people use "alt accounts" on real-name platforms, proving that anonymity (or partial anonymity) is a real need.
**Topic 4:** Satoshi Nakamoto and BTC: Is it a success of anonymity or a long-term credit of pseudonymity?
**Gink @Gink5814 (Pro)**
He views Satoshi Nakamoto as a "model of anonymous success," asserting that the BTC revolution was brought about by "nobody knowing who he/she is." He also cited the example of the anonymous group "wallstreetbets" on Reddit uniting to shake Wall Street. He believes that the true meme comes from the community rather than any celebrity.
He argues that anonymous communities could potentially give rise to "new wealth codes."
On the blockchain, privacy and reputation can be balanced through ZK technology—anonymity does not equate to a lack of credit.
In his view, "on-chain footprints" are more valuable than identity cards; through encryption methods, one's true identity can be hidden while maintaining records of achievements or contributions.
**0xSea @_0xSea_ (Con)**
He believes that Satoshi Nakamoto was not "randomly anonymous," but rather a recognizable pseudonym, "Satoshi," who gained community trust and attention through consistent posting and open-source coding. If everything was completely anonymous, with every post being anonymous, no influence would be created.
He emphasized that an ID that can accumulate credit is not pure anonymity.
**Xiaozhu @Hutflow (Con)**
He pointed out that BTC's success does not mean that "anonymity must succeed"; anonymity has also given rise to many scams and online violence. Not all anonymity can achieve success like Satoshi Nakamoto.
**Topic 5:** Anonymity and personal privacy, psychological catharsis.
**Mirror @mirrorzk (Pro)**
He emphasized that anonymity serves as a means of catharsis and release for individuals with mental health issues or violent fantasies.He cited the example that "intrusive thoughts" need a safe outlet, or they may lead to extremes.
He also referred to a study (CHI Conference) indicating that anonymity can enhance self-disclosure, particularly promoting the expression of negative content more significantly.
Qingfeng @QFbrc20_66
He acknowledged that in very special circumstances, anonymity is correct, such as doing good deeds anonymously or protecting special groups. However, he believes that most people will eventually return to real life; going downstairs to buy something still requires a form of real-name identification.
He said, "I prefer to live openly in the sunlight," comparing "complete anonymity" to "a rat in the sewer," which cannot be seen in the light.
**Topic 6: How to Balance the Freedom of Anonymity and Community Governance**
EdisonChen (Pro)
He advocates that anonymity is part of freedom; without anonymity, there is no true freedom of speech. He mentioned technological means (ZK) that can achieve group credibility without exposing real identities, thus balancing privacy and credibility.
Yali @0xbfun (Con)
He believes that anonymity is like "nuclear reactions"; it can generate power but also cause destruction. There must be stronger regulation or filtering mechanisms; otherwise, it is likely to be eroded by malicious speech and rumors.
He emphasized that "simple anonymity" often ruins the long-term development of a community.
0xSea @_0xSea_
From a product manager's perspective, he worries that anonymity cannot form scalable competition and user retention.
He further distinguishes between "government perspective real-name" and "community perspective real-name"; as long as users have a fixed ID and have established credit accumulation, it is not considered pure anonymity. He also believes that Wikipedia is mostly a "PGC" rather than a true UGC community, which cannot be compared to large-scale social platforms.
**Topic 7: The Boundaries of Anonymity Definition (Pure Anonymity vs. Pseudonymity vs. Semi-real Name)**
Amanda @CryptoAmandaL (Pro) defines "anonymity" as "users expressing opinions or interacting without exposing their real identities," emphasizing that it can protect the vulnerable. However, she did not differentiate between "one-time unidentifiable anonymity" and "sustained ID pseudonymity" in detail.
0xSea @_0xSea_ (Con) repeatedly mentioned: If a person has a stable and credit-accumulative ID, then from a community product perspective, this is already considered "semi-real name" or pseudonymity, not "pure anonymity."
He said, "If the speaking ID is always called anonymous, there is no way to distinguish who is who, making it impossible to accumulate fan relationships and credit."
Gink @Gink5814 (Pro) used Satoshi Nakamoto as an example, stating that Satoshi is a non-sovereign pseudonym; blockchain technology also allows people to accumulate on-chain footprints and achievements in an "anonymous" manner, equivalent to "pseudonym + credibility system." He views this as another form of "anonymity" since it is not bound to a government ID or passport.
Qingfeng @QFbrc20_66 (Con) tends to categorize anonymity into two states: "truly hidden from the light" and "having a fixed online name, but not equivalent to real-name identification." For him, the latter is not truly anonymous but rather wearing a mask while still being traceable in identity/credit.
**Intersection of Views and Reflections**
From this debate, it is evident that there is no single answer to whether "anonymity" is a blessing or a curse in social interactions. There exist multiple levels, such as "pure anonymity," "pseudonym/nickname," and "real-name/semi-real name."
The affirmative side (Amanda, Gink, EdisonChen, Mirror, etc.) places greater emphasis on the positive effects of anonymity for vulnerable groups, freedom of speech, emotional release, and innovation (blockchain). They also believe that with the help of regulation and technology (such as AI filtering, ZK), it is possible to mitigate maliciousness while retaining the advantages of "anonymity lowering barriers."
The opposing side (Yali, 0xSea, Xiaozhu, Qingfeng, etc.) believes that "simple anonymity" can amplify the darker sides of human nature and rumors, which is detrimental to long-term community operation; they emphasize that communities need "identifiable or accumulative" IDs to form a stable UGC ecosystem and user relationship chain.
Regarding the case of Satoshi Nakamoto, both sides hold firm positions: the affirmative side views it as a successful example of anonymity, while the opposing side sees it as a classic case of pseudonymity/identifiable credit.
On the psychological and privacy levels, the affirmative side points out that anonymity is crucial for emotional release and privacy protection, while the opposing side believes that people ultimately must return to reality, and complete anonymity is not a universal need for most.
Around the "boundaries of anonymity," both sides reached some consensus or divergence during the discussion:
Consensus: There are not only the extremes of "government real-name" and "complete anonymity" but also intermediate forms like "pseudonym/nickname," which can accumulate credit and protect privacy to some extent.
Divergence: The affirmative side is more inclined to consider "pseudonym" as part of anonymity, while the opposing side emphasizes that "identifiable ID ≠ not truly anonymous." This also determines their differing views on whether "anonymous communities can accumulate content."
Perhaps these differences also reflect the multifaceted nature of anonymity: it can bring true freedom of speech and a sense of security, but it can also drown communities in rumors and attacks. Ultimately, it depends on how platform design, technological support, and community culture work together to find a balance between "anonymity freedom" and "healthy governance." As many have said—anonymity itself is neither absolutely good nor bad; it is a form of freedom and a basic right, and the key lies in how it is appropriately used and how the governance mechanisms operate behind it.
BiteyeCN