Yeah, this deserves to be said. As catchy as the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is, it actually seems to be a lot more generalized. Anonymity can reduce the likelihood of being punished for bad behavior, but it seems like that wasn't even the main thing preventing people from being nasty to each other.
There's actually a whole book that basically argues it's not so much anonymity as it is saying things without seeing a human face on the other side.
So it's not that
you can't see
me, it's that
I can't see
you. A big part of communication is the idea of
feedback, and in face-to-face discourse, this is done through reading the recipient's face and responding to that. On the internet, we see words and we basically lose the feedback barrier, resorting to the first thought that comes to mind.
People arguing that the internet reveals people for who they really are... well, they're incorrect. It's like saying the way a person acts while drunk is who they really are. Nah, a person's identity is super, super complex, but a big part of it is in regards to how they choose to respond to other people.
I'm a good person, I think, but I get ridiculously mad at people who do bad things in traffic. That's my immediate response. Without inhibition, I'd road rage all the time, because so many drivers are terrible and shouldn't have licenses. But... the person I am is the person who chooses not to give in to that immediate, angry response, and says "hm, maybe they didn't see me/maybe they made a mistake--I know I have/etc."
The problem with the internet is that, without audiovisual feedback, it can break barriers in communication. I can't read your face and see I'm saying something in a way that doesn't match my meaning, for instance. That lack of feedback leads to a lot of communication errors.