Surely some sociologists must have studied this online phenomenon?

Something about the anonymous, impersonal interface of a forum makes people less likely to accept the humanity of their interlocutors. People say a lot of things on here they would not say, and/or not say in that way to another human being face-to-face. (And I do not exempt myself from that, though I strive to be better.)

I suppose that can be a double-edged sword. It's too easy to become uncivil or even hostile, and certainly very easy not to seriously consider the validity of another's position. However, there is a freeing element also that allows for more exploration and/or honesty. It's possible that the negatives of the former too often outweigh the positives of the latter, however.

- @Artemis

https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2012/03/the-unapologetic-society.html

They probably have although I’m having trouble finding any at the moment that deals specifically with the online discourse.

In the link there is an interest read and some links to more.

I think for philosophy, there are probably a lot more issues at play because it is not like most forms of every day discourse. Then you have the online element which as you said makes people a lot braver and more willing to say things they wouldn’t normally say otherwise.

With most people but especially with philosophers you also have something I’m calling the Iceberg effect.

Take the Optimism vs pessimism debate; a theme that seemed to form was that I wasn’t taking into account and was dismissing the political, social and technological factors.

This is due to the iceberg effect, that what you see is what you get and it’s all very surface level. The criticism was that my argument was deemed as not wholistic enough and that I hadn’t thought about X, Y and Z.

However, this is assuming that the iceberg on top is the full structure. That I am only what I say and write and nothing else when what I think before I write is actually very holistic. However, I could go onto any discussion here and make a similar counter argument, that it wasn’t holistic enough. Which begs the question, why isn’t every discussion titled “my philosophy of everything, taking into every account every subject and how they relate to each other with no compartmentalisation at all.”?

You can see the difference in language used here;

You haven’t thought about X, Y, Z.

Have you thought about X, Y, Z?

I didn’t read it all but you didn’t take into account X, Y, Z

The first is somebody under the iceberg effect. The second is someone who is accommodating for it. This is why philosophers are expected to ask questions more than anything else. The third is someone who’s only interest is hitting the iceberg which is why they are too close and can barely see any of it.

Suffice it to say, people are like icebergs. You can assume that what is above the surface is all there is, but you’ll be missing 90% of the person that exists below the surface.

(Not to be confused with The Iceberg Theory or the Iceberg Illusion)

If you believe what you see is what you get, then you just see people as mountains.