the interesting thing here is that this stems from an accurate characterization of a very real phenomenon; broadly speaking, an anonymous account IS more likely to be low quality. he's splitting on the issue as a energy-[saving measure, which is valid, but its a crude solution
---
RT @Timcast
stop responding to people who dont use their name or actual avatar and watch discourse drastically improve
https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1408084572026322954
while there's much wrong w/ credentialism, it exists for a reason; there are SO many people w/ worthless opinions, & you need some way of sorting thru them. it's rather difficult & work-intensive to come up w/ your own system, so defaulting to that of polite society is reasonable
his claim is in all likelihood true for very many people, esp those w/ face profiles; that method will also. generate many false negatives, but that's not exactly much of a concern for most, considering how many people there are in the world.
there's some tryhard martyr dumb shit later in the thread that doesn't acknowledge most people's reality; power differentials, sunk costs, and nonfungibility of community and employer is all too real, and who can blame the average person for fearing the Cancel egregore?
it's an understandable frustration imo, one that any attempted revolutionary feels; but you won't get very far bemoaning the reality of The Grill, and how little most people care about ideology. it's rather immature of him to be whining about this past college, but there it is
given all this, why did people find this tweet so upsetting? presumably bc of its assumed implications, that anon accounts don't have anything useful to say, & in fact, might even be acting in bad faith; but none of this is present in the tweet! this is defensive pattern matching