One of the terms I find most problematic when reading online content is the phrase “in real life” as a means to distinguish online activities from face to face “real” experiences. While we can’t substitute our online participation for the ones we engage in as part of the physical world, to suggest that they are entirely separate from the moments that define our physical experience seems like a fallacy and generally incorrect. We cannot divorce the person we are online from the person we are, period. There’s a certain overlap and fluidity between our online personas and the people we believe we are “in real life”. However, behind their screens, users sometimes forget this fact, adopting a bold callousness in their online interactions, and these characteristics combined with the anonymity of the social web allow users to say things that they might not say otherwise. While there may be truth in their comments, users frame conversations differently online and as communicators or producers on the social web, it’s important to recognize the shift in paradigm when discussing users; there are of course the “good” – engaged individuals and communities who positively contribute to discussions, the “bad” – those that can be typically classified as bullies or trolls, and the “untapped” – those that provide valuable insight through seemingly negative packages.