For starters, he only gives a single study to back up his argument that anonymity breeds hostility, i've heard studies that say otherwise.
I don't like his implication that the solution to dealing with hostility is oversight. If that's true, the you aren't actually making people any less racist or bigoted, you are just holding a sword over people's heads. That's not a solution. if you have somebody who hates african americans, giving him a punishment every time he voices it isn;t going to change his mind, it's just going to make him resentful.
I think the ability to mute and block people is sufficient for most games. That allows people to choose what sort of behavior they want to be around based on what they find to be acceptable. Some people don't mind offensive language hostility. One of the best parts of the internet is that you aren't bound to some universal set of rules over what's acceptable or not, it's open. You can do whatever, people who do have different views can find each other and communicate without being ostracized by people who disagree. His entire presentation is under the assumption that this stuff isn't okay, and that the internet should play by the real worlds rules. Words are just words. I've dealt with being harassed online. that's a horrible experience, but it's not at all the same as somebody calling you a mean word in a match of halo, it's not even close.
People obviously shouldn't be hostile and offensive for no reason, so I think it's reasonable that people want to focus on that and treat that as a problem instead of telling people to suck it up. But I think there's a line to be drawn. Why should you, as an individual, care if somebody calls you a mean word, when you don't know them, they offer nothing to your life, and you are unlikely to ever see them again in matchmaking? I don't think you should. Would it be nice if they didn't do it? Yeah, it would, but I don't think them doing it is so harmful that they deserve punitive action, necessarily.
Now, he addresses this: He claims that social interaction is the top factor for if a player continues to play a game or quits. He says that players are "320% more likely to quit the more toxicity they experience". What does he mean by "more", in this context? It can't be the moment anybody says something mean to me, that I am 320% more likely to never play the game". How is "toxicity" defined here? How are they determining that that's actually what led players to quit?
There's too many questions about this statistic for me to even consider it, but I do think it brings up something important. I've never played leauge of legends, but I know it's a highly competitive game that relies on teamwork for you to win. I have, however, played battlefield, which is pretty similar in that regard. Your individual performance in BF doesn't matter so much as you being able to work with other players to capture objective and use tactics to your advantage. Uncooperative players who do not play for the team, or are greifing, who are hacking are a huge problem here. These are the people who you should be going after, not the people who just call you an asshole or use slurs, because that has no inherent association with bad "in game" behavior. .
I don't like the tribunal system he explains, for a few specific reasons. I do think telling people what they did that resulted in reports, and having a report card of such that details all of this, is good. I don't think having it be public is, because that can result in actual harassment. Being targeted over and over by people who are trying to teach you a lesson, not just somebody saying one mean thing to you in a game.
I do think that the idea of people being able to give positive reports (the honor system thing) is good.... but what does it actually do? How does that matter in random matchmaking? Is it just to make people feel good? Does it give those players more weight when matchmaking, so it looks for people with a good ranking before checking for people wiht a neutral or bad one? if so, I think that's neat.
I think all of the language analyzing stuff is super cool, and interesting, but I'm not a fan of using an automated system to "judge" people. They say it can identify context, but I'm skeptical. The numbers he gives are compelling, but still.
tl;dr: I agree with his views on positive re-enforcement, I disagree with some of his logic, and I disagree