Why So Many Anonymous Posts?
Hey guys....been curious about this for a while and wanted to open this up for discussion.
Why do so many people post on here anonymously?
To begin with, WSO is already an online forum with anonymous screen names. Adding an additional layer of anonymity seems a bit much. I understand using an extra layer of anonymity if you want to discuss something controversial or very personal that could give away your real identity. But, I look at the anonymous posts and 80% of them are not very controversial opinions.
Have we gotten to a point in society where we're even afraid of giving non-controversial opinions on an anonymous online forum??? That's just crazy. In a way, I think it says something pretty frightening about our state of the world.
As a very opinionated member of the community who has no interest in this level of anonymity, help me understand this.
I wish we had a meter of % anonymous posts on a single thread. The anonymous meter. Some threads nowadays are like 60-80% seemingly.
That's exactly what I'm saying! It's insane. I get that, if the post is on political correctness or politics, it would be 60-80% anonymous. But why almost every post?
And kudos to you man for always using your name (even when sometimes you shouldn't). I'm kinda like you as well.
haha thanks bro yeah I am not allowed to post anonymous. I'm not sure why some people are allowed to post anonymous, but if you put Other - Other, you're blocked from using that feature. Doesn't really seem fair as there were definitely 2 threads where I would have preferred to post anonymously.
People are probably scared of weirdos Doxxing them. I would imagine that you can get fired if someone sent career/work related posts to HR. Whether or not it’s a valid concern, I think that’s what’s causing it.
Exactly this - and it's not even crazy people. Once I started posting anonymously, my LinkedIn-views-by-random-college-freshmen/sophomores cratered. Clearly I had been too honest in one post or another and y'all are freaking ninjas.
Thats hilarious but still creepy as fuck
Prob because I read a post not two days ago where a guy was talking about looking someone up on LinkedIn. Weird af
If this was about Tubby Burnham..... I have some news for you pal.
An extra layer of protection can never hurt, as some of us have posted here long enough that there is enough identifiable information that a really dedicated lunatic could piece together and track you down, if they really wanted to. What if posting something totally innocent and normal today is potentially life-ruining ten years from now? Like if you told me in 2011 that we'd be tearing down statues of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln...
Basically this. Finance is a small world, hell I got work experience by putting together who another user was from various comments they'd made and cold emailing them about an internship.
I recently sat down with an MD for an interview and he looked at my resume and looked at me and then said "You're Isaiah aren't you."
jk jk jk lol lol
That would be hilarious. Although if I were an MD on WSO and were interviewing an older looking guy named Isaiah I would definitely be intrigued
The name may not be necessary depending on the dress shirt (or lack of) that Isaiah 53:5 chooses to wear to his interview.
Am pretty sure that is not his name, but it’s a reference to a Bible verse.
hahaha nice one
Love that two people just made anonymous responses with non-controversial answers. I hope you guys were doing that as a joke!
I totally agree that there are times where you might want to hide your trail, but I see the anonymous function used even beyond that on completely neutral comments that couldn't incriminate you at all.
Honestly because if you piece together enough threads, you can start to find out who people are...
I made some incredibly stupid/cringe posts a while back that I can't delete for whatever reason. If I post anon, no one will be able to see them. Additionally, if you read enough posts/comments of a person you can piece who they are. I'd rather not have that happen to me.
I know this might come off as rude or abrasive, but I promise you that's not my intention: why is this something that bothers you?
It doesn't bother me. I'm just trying to understand the psychology behind it.
Also, I still have not heard an explanation on why people do it when there is no way to tie them to a comment, and the comment is not controversial. That's what I find really strange.
I'm no psychologist, but I think people just feel safer behind that extra layer of protection. Maybe it's justified, maybe it's not, but I think that's what it is.
It's not so much that everything people might say is controversial, it's that it's revealing. Take a guy like Isaiah for example (nothing against him, he's just the first dude that came to mind). You click on his profile and scroll through his comments and posts for about 10 minutes alongside Google, I'm pretty sure you can figure out who he is. Might take a little longer for others if they don't post as much, but if I only post anon, the chances of anyone doing this to me become 0.
When I provide shitty advice to college students I don’t want anyone to go through my comments and realize I work Back office at GS Salt Lake
Who knows
Saying thing A on one thread is fine. Saying thing B on another thread is fine too. But when you are not anonymous it suddenly becomes A + B because ur name links the two together. When this builds up, you can literally stitch a story together. Thus, anonymity.
I don't give a fuck but understand why people would care, I figured out who one guy was off of here one time, so don't really have a problem with it. What's funny is some of the people with usernames are posting way 'worse' stuff than the people who post anonymously and are scared lol
lol as @neink said in another thread, the chad celebrity shitposter vs the virgin anonymous
Liberals have created an atmosphere of terror and everyone is afraid of losing their job for pointing out obvious flaws in the woke theology.
Thread about target colleges and banking: "I attended a no-name state school in the Midwest..."
Thread about career trajectory: "I worked at GS/MS/JPM and moved to a MF for two years..."
Thread about something to do with race or being a minority: "As someone who comes from a racial minority..."
The first two threads already could have enough info to dox someone, especially if a student comes from that no-name state school, where everyone at that school talks about that one guy who is at a MF.
Btw, no offense to state or no-name schools. Was just using them as an example to prove the point above.
Who cares if you get "doxxed". Just don't say anything on this site you wouldn't say to someone in person, it's that easy.
I don't really get what you're saying because most people talk to their friends and family different from boss.
Sure, but this forum isn't filled with your family and friends. It is filled with anonymous strangers. Talk to us as you would talk to someone you meet at a cocktail party. Again, this isn't difficult, and it certainly doesn't require the false equivalency of telling me that you wouldn't talk to your frat brother the same way you would to your boss, so this must be the same.
I have a hard time believing that your icebreaker at a cocktail party is a political rant about the latest conservative policy yet you are involved in most political threads on this site. I know for a fact I have many other topics that I would rather talk about, and I have friends who I never directly speak politics with. Also the fact that we can write up comments on this site and take time to compose responses allows for a different type of communication that wouldn’t apply to banter at a party.
Ha. Of course not! That being said, I wouldn't be afraid or embarrassed to repeat any of my stances here, in a public forum. Again, you are welcome to misrepresent the point I'm making, but that doesn't invalidate it. If you treat anonymity the internet offers as a license to say something you wouldn't want associated with your good name, then maybe you (generically speaking) need to reevaluate what you're saying on here.
OK. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, since this very fact is what means you really aren't at risk of being tainted with the fallout from an "off the cuff" remark. The rare times people bother to interact on this site in a calm and composed manner, I find the discussion very interesting. The only people who suffer from having their name associated with their statements are trolls. While I have no interest in exposing the people who shitpost (or learning anything about them or their beliefs, for that matter), I also don't feel obligated to lower the quality of debate to protect their ability to be an anonymous asshole.
So you admit that your icebreaker wouldn't be politics. Why exactly is that? Presumably this quote that I said
resonates with you as well. But do you think that's the image that you and I create on this site? Probably not. I would bet people overinflate the importance of politics in both of our lives just by reading the content on this site. So yes I would be hesitant for people to consider my written comments without knowing me in advance because it creates an impression that I cannot be friends with those of opposing views, which is far from the reality. And this goes for not just for strangers at cocktail parties but other social groups as well (say a fitness group) where we actually know each other but still share an interest outside of political/controversial topics.
Now let's move from the cocktail party example to an employer example. As you know the districts where finance jobs are are incredibly liberal. Manhattan, where you live had 87% vote for Biden, and if you take out those who simply threw a vote in for Trump due to taxes, we are looking at easily 90+% liberals (I know that voting patterns are not perfect with conservative/liberal but its good enough to get an idea of trend). Chicago, Philly, LA are probably similar (if not 90 maybe 85 but you get the point). What does this mean? There is a very good chance an employer and majority of coworkers are liberal no matter the finance job one holds. and perhaps even staunchly so (SJWs as we call it). So, considering what I hear about conservatives in my college, I gather the impression that what I've written would create a very negative impression of me for those who I work with or will work with in the future. This is something you will not really be able to relate with unless you pack your bags and decide to start working in real estate in rural Ohio or the Midwest. I mean even you yourself reduced conservatives to bigots in this comment:
__________________________________________________________________________
Well then... unexpected but I do appreciate the compliment.
Right, but again, it's important to make the distinction that not wanting to open a conversation with politics is not the same as being uncomfortable with being associated with a certain view or views. The whole point of "cocktail party" conversation is to be inoffensive and bland - I wouldn't bring up politics not because I am uncomfortable with my stances, but because it's a social faux pas to talk about potentially controversial topics. Moreover, responding to a thread (as I do here) is responding to an invitation to participate, whereas bringing such a thing up implies a more active solicitation of an argument. I made this exact mistake yesterday when someone mentioned that the Gates' were getting divorced and I said something along the lines of "well I thought that was why he implanted her with a microchip" and it was not well received. I should know better than that, even in jest.
That comment in no way reduces conservatives to bigots. It says don't be a bigot. Being an asshole isn't the sole purview of any political affiliation.
And so what if your coworkers end up being more liberal? First off, on Wall Street, I'll guarantee you it's not 90% liberal, so from the perspective of this site you're not going to be in unusual company if you vote Republican. Second, there is such a thing as a thoughtful conservative - if your political philosophy extends beyond "Affirmative Action is racism against whites" and "own the libs" then I think you've got a pretty good chance at your views being given a fair hearing. When I was an analyst, I also wasn't telling my MD about any women I hooked up with over the weekend - just the same as I'm not telling anyone on here about that. The internet has been around long enough that we should all know the protocol, and it is highly unlikely that anyone is speaking different on WSO than they do in their daily lives. And if they are, then perhaps that is a cause for reflection as well.
Ha. Well, I don't mean this to be a backhanded way of un-complimenting you, but you can write in full sentences, your political and social views don't seem to begin and end at "white people are inherently superior," and you seem capable of self-reflection. That is someone worth interacting with, who is capable of having a serious opinion.
If you follow political correctness to a T and preach the woke worldview, you have nothing to fear. So, yes Oz is correct for his situation.
He isn't going to get fired for his constant derogatory comments towards people living outside big cities or red states.
It is amazing that you can say this with a straight face. You have a right to think or say anything you want - you just don't have a right to exempt yourself from the consequences of that speech. I don't direct this comment at you specifically, but in general - if you don't want to be considered a bigot, don't say bigoted things. Your entire argument here is essentially "@Ozymandia, you aren't a bigot or an asshole to people based on factors they can't control, so you don't understand what it's like to not be able to be a complete dick in public."
Correct, and we increasingly live in an intolerant society where anything is considered "bigoted" whether it actually is or not. That's the problem.
Also, I've heard you say very bigoted and hateful things on this website. Fortunately for you, you are often discussing groups of people that are fashionable, acceptable, and popular to hate: rednecks, rural whites, red states etc
EDIT: I have no problem at all with actual bigots being called out, but our new societal standards give a pass to some bigots while also labeling others bigots who are not. As long as that is the case, it is not safe for people to speak openly.
Not sure how I can be bigoted towards a state. The people living there, perhaps... but in that case you've really only accused me of bigotry towards one group, since "rural whites, rednecks, and red states" all seem to overlap to varying degrees.
Also, I have no quarrel with people who live in rural areas, but I do find their lack of empathy towards others disturbing. As I've said a hundred times, being judged for something out of your control (the way you look, your sexual orientation) is bad. Being judged for what you think and the way you act is absolutely appropriate. I don't care if you live in a tiny farming community - I care that you think Mexicans are rapists and murderers, because you've never met anyone from Mexico.
And for what it's worth I think we as a society take being politically correct too far. I just think the complaints that (mainly) conservatives make about "cancel culture" are extraordinarily hypocritical, since as with most things conservatives in the US seem to believe, they just want it to apply to others and not themselves. Don't remember too many GOP folks defending the Dixie Chicks back in 2003 - that's a great example of "cancel culture" before it became a term.
I actually partially agree with you here and I think this highlights an example where there is a marked difference between a "conservative" and a "Republican" although the two terms are often interchanged and I myself can get sloppy mixing up those two or liberal/Democrat. Another more recent example that I personally didn't like - republican congress people who were censured by their districts/states for either not voting to overturn the election results or voting to incite Trump for insurrection charges. I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech and in general first amendment rights and saw that as hypocritical with regards to cancel culture, and believe that those congress people should have a right to vote how they choose given an issue without their entire district disowning them.
Similarly, I hated what happened to the Dixie Chicks and I dislike cancel culture now. However, I would note that there are still distinct differences here.
First, scope and scale. The Dixie Chicks got cancelled? Who else? Not many people cancelled in that era. Hollywood was free to speak their mind and the anti-war movement was very vocal until Obama came to office. Also, the modern cancel culture seems to go after people who are just regular Joes. It goes far beyond celebrities. The number of targets is much larger.
Second, much like you mentioned the Trump crowd, people went after the Dixie Chicks because they were in country music (which is pretty conservative). With the Trump candidates, they are trying to censure people in their own party. Still not good, but distinctly different from trying to censure and cancel some average Joe out there.
Agree both of these episodes were similar but they are not the same in terms of degree nor in the types of targets chosen. I think to find a better comparison, you have to go much further back to the religious right cancelling horror movies, heavy metal, and video games. There you are starting to reach the sort of scale that we're talking about today. But even then, cancelling a video game or rock album was hardly a problem for most of the population - probably helped the rock stars sell more copies.
Went back and read Ozys comment that I had quoted after reading your response and realized that his comment was stronger than what I agree with.. and thus I removed it from my response. I agree that there is hypocrisy of cancel culture within the Republican Party with regards to politics but I also attempted to point out (rather weakly in hindsight) that that is not in touch with conservative line of thinking. I totally agree with your response about the "average Joe" being cancelled out and the context with scope.
You need to find a different hobby, other than to be paranoid about how liberals have ruined the world
What happened to that Skankhunt? Anyone notice he's been completely wiped from the annals of wso
He's still here.
He’s “memberberries” now, another South Park reference
Why does it matter? The content of the post is the same either way, and you can engage with the argument whether you know who wrote it or not.
When people complain about anonymous posters, the subtext of their complaint is usually "I don't like what you're saying because it contradicts my political views, and instead of trying to prove you wrong I want you to be doxxed and fired from your job."
B.S.
Anonymity:
Currently a 100% anonymous thread (until Goldie shows up):
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/Howanyofyouguyshavetriedmicrodos…
I legitimately do not understand how some of you don't see how easy it is to piece together who someone is through their post history.
Yeah, I guess it depends on the person. I don't go anon, but I'm a lot more careful with identifying information. I've never mentioned my city of residence or my industry or my exact college or the banks that I've worked at. Without those pieces of information, it becomes much much harder to track someone down.
It's easier to just post fake information. You can still get valuable advice that way. For example, if you go to Harvard just say you go to Yale; MS instead of Goldman, etc.
I think you mean you can’t go anon.
Truly I do not blame any of more senior folks posting anonymously. There was that thread on "PE net worth" in that thread 2-3 people basically explained they had done very well and how the carry/math works at a UMM/MF firm with good success. Then we had 5 threads where literally the quest was to prove the math for high comp and how to get there, even when certified posters said stop this exercise it was pried and pushed further. Again if people had due dilli skills the damn net worth thread has the math kids. Then we had 2-3 threads on Apollo culture and again attacks happened to certified users till finally someone literally pointed out a partner on linkedin who is not so nice. Then we had 50 threads on what school should I go to, does XYZ UMM/MF have people from this school after GS/MS. I do not blame anyone not wanting to create breadcrumb trail where only way to get through to high school senoirs is to literally tell them google this exact not so nice PE partner.
So really you gotta think if some people are going to make 15 diff threads on how to make 8 figures, and then ask what school and what firm this is. Just how motivated is this person...
x
Maybr
I got my offer pulled because they tracked a post back to me. Nothing even particularly bad in the post. They were so vindictive that even though they saw the post well in advance, they waited until right before my job was supposed to start to pull, which obviously screwed me over quite a bit. This was a well known MM IB firm.
What was the post about?
The only firm I know that can do something like this is FT Partners. One time someone posted something particularly bad about the firm on this site and the CEO went around the office trying to blame certain people and see how they'd react to try to find the person.
Everytime a thread is made about FT Partners, it's pretty obvious that someone from the firm (either HR or CEO but most likely CEO) is posting and trying to defend the firm. Because the firm got called out for creating false 5 star reviews on Glassdoor, they've started creating 4 star reviews to try to make it "seem more real."
I hesitated to call out the firm here because they would instantly know who I am, but I decided that at this point in my life, if I still let that ridiculous incident control me, then I would lose a little bit of respect for myself.
It was Stifel / KBW. I got my offer pulled because I asked on WSO whether or not people thought the brand / firm has declined due to the acquisition since there seemed to be some issues with integrating the two entities.
They should be embarrassed about how they handled it.
Wow, that's really screwed up. Sorry to hear that man.
Appreciate it. I ended up in a much better spot long term than if I stayed so it was a blessing in disguise I guess... minus the stress.
Interesting
I dislike the anonymous feature and have never used it. I agree that it makes no sense because this is already an anonymous forum. Outside of WSO, I am a very public person and I want it that way because it leads to business. If you do not give out your social security number or credit card card info, I am not sure what the concern is here. Some people use it as a cover to freely insult others without consequences. For me, I do not get anything out of insulting other people but some people thrive on it. I might say something sarcastic in a joking way, but that is about it.
That "cover" won't stay around for long since if someone is insulting since we have a SB:MS ratio minimum of 70% in order to allow for the additional layer of anonymity. We've had members message support complaining that they can't post anonymously anymore but it's usually by design :-)
Sometimes I post anonymous because I don't what that my friend know my real opinion
Ok
It sounds like you don't like the fact that people are posting uncontroversial opinions anonymously, but if you remove this layer of anonymity, wouldn't that further reduce the number of controversial opinions that people do post anonymously? Also, it's just an alternative to making throwaways which is what most people do on anonymous forums anyhow that don't have a built-in anonymizing feature like wso.
Yes exactly. However, I don't want to remove the anonymous function. I think it has legitimate uses and helps drive conversation. I just wish people voluntarily wouldn't use it when it isn't necessary. Also, I feel like it helps build community when you're not responding to a bunch anon accounts in regular non-controversial conversation.
That's a fair and balanced take, agreed
I only post anonymously because if anyone I know were to find out I'm as active as I am on WSO they would definitely make fun of me, and I feel like over many different posts/comments I may slip up and give away too much identifying info (school, group, etc)
Not sure why anyone would make fun of you for contributing to an online community of people who are trying to help each other out in their careers
Yeah, anyone whose purpose here is to make fun of you, is an asshole
You should not want to interact with people who are going to make fun of you anyway
I hear you
I would think depends on intent. If a person is saying something they aren’t too proud of, then maybe they should be anonymous. Alternatively, if a person thinks that they may just want to help others and provide helpful, like charity comments or give back to others, maybe it is also better to be anonymous because then it’s like more pure charity because they don’t want any personal credit or honor for giving the charity. It’s like it’s a higher form of charity to donate anonymously as opposed to having them write your name on the building if you are cool with that. It makes the charity about the receiver and how they deserve the charity as opposed to about the giver and them wanting others to think potentially they are this great, charitable person
but that’s just an idea idk
this is a good point....however, the anonymous poster still can collect Silver Bananas, so how altruistic are they really? we all know SBs are worth a lot (or maybe one day will be once/if I ever get around to launching our own Banana token and integrating it with WSO)...
Would have more value than half of these other shitcoins
I’ve never used the anonymous feature but I understand why it exists. I like to think that every post I have made on this forum — and there have been thousands — have always been respectful and mature in a way that I wouldn’t be ashamed of it. That doesn’t mean I want people on the forums to know who I am, just that I’m comfortable with the degree of risk.
I do agree that it is overused. WSO is very much a community and part of the motivation to post and provide advice is the feeling that you’re providing advice to other members of the community. Answering requests from “burner” accounts or anonymous posters takes away from this element of the community. I find it particularly frustrating when someone DMs me from a burner account to remain anonymous. If you want private, tailored advice ... at least have the decency to use your anonymous account name. I have been on this website for 15 years and have better things to do than track down a banking analyst.
I would encourage people not to use it except in circumstances where you are publicly revealing identifiable information.
100% agree with everything you said. Also, I've thought about the risk as well. Worst case scenario, people find out my thoughts and opinions if they care to read through my hundreds of comments. I stand by everything that I say on this website. If someone wants to persecute me for my opinions, that's a bad reflection of them, not of me.
I'd say more than 50% of anomalous comments on my threads have been either abusive or trolls
One major benefit of the anonymous feature is that I look at posts more objectively not knowing who the author is.
You're prostituting yourself out for cheeseburgers again, aren't you?
Man’s gotta eat, Julian.
Fair point but I would argue that in the majority of cases you want to know the source of the comment. For example, for many years (perhaps still?) there was an individual, Brady4MVP, who praised HBS to the extreme. Knowing his track record of supporting HBS was important when assessing his feedback about various MBA programs. While objectively assessing content can be beneficial, it can be a dangerous path to go down on this website in particular.
It's a double-edged sword for sure. Tough to suss out bias in posts made anonymously.
Accusantium dolorum in reiciendis id similique facere. Atque ad tempora nam maiores. Ut at necessitatibus ipsam. Alias nisi laborum in praesentium possimus nulla. Dignissimos voluptatem id qui et. Error aut distinctio optio nihil inventore doloribus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Nesciunt nulla ipsum eum est consectetur. Excepturi blanditiis et itaque qui sequi vitae quod. Beatae quis minima dolore. Libero qui facere enim consequatur.
Est tenetur fugiat beatae provident nam amet. Non et in vel labore.
Atque totam nam laboriosam sequi. Possimus exercitationem eveniet aliquid voluptas dolores non. Sint aperiam sunt sunt non beatae consequatur nisi.
Corrupti nobis et aut mollitia aut odit voluptatem. Consectetur non in sunt sunt. Ut aliquid non odio consequatur quisquam tempora. Excepturi iste sed saepe eius impedit deleniti. Aut necessitatibus ut omnis recusandae asperiores velit. Officiis consequuntur consequatur facere ducimus ut libero cum corporis.
Iste blanditiis minima facilis commodi sint dolor. Qui voluptatibus laudantium quia sit. Qui recusandae expedita est est vero perspiciatis.
Nostrum consequatur est qui. Aut non corporis iure error sit. Officia itaque nulla consequuntur. Vel nobis perferendis velit deserunt voluptatibus unde. Numquam iure praesentium voluptatem sed et ducimus possimus. Cumque sunt sit ut quibusdam adipisci.
Vitae iusto numquam facere quia quia atque exercitationem quos. Amet facilis qui iure accusantium expedita voluptate cum. Optio quos sed quia.
Fuga ut magnam numquam voluptatem eius quos neque asperiores. Eos incidunt qui atque. Omnis sed illo maiores placeat quia doloremque esse doloribus.
Ipsa sapiente et non repellat nisi. Ex quo sed aliquid nesciunt ullam aut nulla odit. Aliquid ipsa reprehenderit voluptate sed laborum omnis cupiditate repudiandae. Iste ut dolores vero nemo doloremque quia et.
Modi ut qui iusto. Mollitia et nemo enim earum aliquam. Eos doloribus saepe iste veniam velit pariatur et sequi. Quia minus qui velit rerum voluptas sequi rem. Eum vitae ipsa et et.