The the question in my title is not just there to grab your attention. It seems many news sites, including sites like the Huffington Post and The Washington Post, are considering altering the rules under which people who post comments to their websites are permitted, to a large extent, to use anonymity to hide their true identities.
The Washington Post plans to revise its comments policy over the next several months, and one of the ideas under consideration is to give greater prominence to commenters [sic] using real names. […]
The Huffington Post soon will announce changes, including ranking commenters based in part on how well other readers know and trust their writing.
“Anonymity is just the way things are done. It’s an accepted part of the Internet, but there’s no question that people hide behind anonymity to make vile or controversial comments,” said Arianna Huffington, a founder of The Huffington Post. “I feel that this is almost like an education process. As the rules of the road are changing and the Internet is growing up, the trend is away from anonymity.”
The trend is away from anonymity. I don’t know if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
I do know that the first time I published comments under my real name and then posted an op-ed in my local paper mildly and politely criticizing John McCain for his us of the words “gooks” (note: my children are half Japanese-American) back in 2000 and suggesting that he should apologize for those remarks I received harassing phone calls, a few of which made implied threats of violence to my family. At that time I vowed never to post online using my real name again.
On the other hand, we all know that anonymity allows easy access to individuals with an agenda who come to this site and other sites to attack individuals for their views or even in BooMan’s case to disclose personal information about him that at the time he wished to keep private. However, we also know that anonymity allows some very vile ad hominem attacks to be made and racist, bigoted remarks to see the light of day, comments that likely never would be made if the commentator’s name could be discovered by family, friends or employers by a simple search online.
Many sites which accept anonymous comments treat the problem in different ways. Some sites seem not to care and allow anything and everything to be posted. Daily Kos allows its own members to hide comments that are offensive by using troll ratings, and on occasion the site administrators ban posters who it deems too controversial (a process that continues to evolve and recently led to multiple diaries regarding the issue of the misuse of troll ratings to foster flame wars and repress the views of those with whom certain groups disagree).
At Booman Tribune, we generally give out warnings first, and if the behavior persists the individual may be banned from the site, though that has been an infrequent occurrence of late. But no one here discloses the identity of the person whose behavior has crossed the line into personal atatcks. That was not the case in a recent incident involving derogatory comments posted to the Cleveland Plains Dealer’s online comments section.
The Plain Dealer of Cleveland recently discovered that anonymous comments on its site, disparaging a local lawyer, were made using the e-mail address of a judge who was presiding over some of that lawyer’s cases.
That kind of proxy has been documented before; what was more unusual was that The Plain Dealer exposed the connection in an article. The judge, Shirley Strickland Saffold, denied sending the messages — her daughter took responsibility for some of them. And last week, the judge sued The Plain Dealer, claiming it had violated her privacy.
There is no expectation of privacy under American law when speech is made in a public forum such as on television, in print or standing on a soapboix in the public square. That is one reason why newspaper editorial boards and journalists, in my view, have been very cautious about what they say, fearing the reactions of advertisers, powerful individuals and organizations (think of the pouf pieces written by the NY Times leading up to the Iraq war as one example) and even mobs of citizens to opinions considered unpopular.
It must be remembered that it wasn’t the mainstream media that led the fight for Civil Rights or led opposition to the Vietnam War in the 20th Century. Far from it. Journalists, editors and publishers, by the very nature if their business (and it has become ever more a business over the course of my lifetime) tend to avoid controversy, or or hide the truth of many issues through the use of ridiculous “balanced reporting” in which the lies of one side are permitted as much weight as the facts of another side (see, e.g., the current “controversy” over global warming as one example where the lies and half truths of climate change skeptics — for the most part not experts in climate science who are funded by groups opposed to the reduction in the use of fossil fuels — are given equal weight in the news media to those of climate scientists who publish their research in peer reviewed scientific journals).
However, from its inception, the internet, by custom and tradition has permitted anonymity (assuming no other violation of the law such as comments which threatened bodily harm or death to specific individuals) giving rise to a belief among most people who post online that anonymity was the norm and that this custom or tradition would always remain. That belief is now being challenged directly by new organizations and may lead to legislation in the future from Congress limiting the use of anonymity omnline.
There are many negatives to online anonymity, as the NY Times’ article from which I have quoted points out, but there is one large advantage: it allows the fee expression of ideas without fear that you will be punished for that expression, or that others will retaliate against you for your views. That is something to consider carefully before we plunge headlong into any new era in which online anonymity is weakened and posters are required to use their real names or provide personal information to online blogs and websites that can be discloses publicly at the whim of the website owner.
WWPS- What Would Publius Say?
I have no problem with people knowing who I am but many people cannot have their identity out there because of jobs or even safety reason(ie stalkers and that type of thing). I think this is a bad idea.
That Plain Dealer case at least offers an actual ethical dilemma.
The Plain Dealer case is something I’m familiar with. The judge is a known nut who once told a woman who appeared before her court on theft charges (IIRC) that her financial problems would go away if she’d wear short skirts and spread her legs a little bit to entice men.
The judge’s email account and computer were used to routinely write anonymous comments on the Cleveland.com website about cases that were before Judge Strickland Saffold. Only she would know about them.
Connie Schultz, a columnist with the PD is very much opposed to allowing anonymous comments. She (being the wife of Sen. Sherrod Brown) is the target of vile, personal attacks and menacing suggestive comments, which the online editor usually can’t keep up with.
For my part, I have been a lifelong writer of letters to the editor…probably have had 2 dozen printed since I was a kid…but I will no longer write them since papers allow anonymous commenters to attack.
It’s an interesting debate. You want to foster discussion, but the comments section of the vast majority of sites are just out of control.
The nasty comments in papers and blogs are horrible, but one of the best bloggers I know has to remain anonymous beccause of a stalker situation. I would hate to see the people who have to protect themselves because of work ot other issues disappear from the blogosphere.
I find it terribly naive for anyone to believe they are truly anonymous online, even when using a pseudonym. I’m not sure what news sites have to gain by allowing anonymous comments. Increased page views, I guess? But as the article states, advertisers seldom want their ad placed next to commentary anyway.
The comment section of most newspapers is quickly taken over by the lowest common denominator, and it prevents others who have legitimate thoughtful comments from wading in.
Look at any newspaper comment section and what do you see? Loads of angry Tea Party types. Newspapers are to blame though, too. I’ve seen LTE’s call Obama a Socialist and stupidity of that sort.
I think a lot of blogs would become Subscriber-Only with Password-Protected entry. New members might have a probation period before being allowed full access to identifying other members or some other process for eliminating potential “stalkers” would be applied. It would install a universal “Don’t Be A Prick” rule to the internet, be the death of trolls and sock puppets and really awfully suppress the “spirited debate” we’ve all come to expect online. That would, perhaps, be a great loss. It would also be a hellava lot like Facebook!
On the other hand, mass sites like HuffPo or WashPo should simply shut down commenting entirely. Scrolling thru their threads is like taking a tour in a sewer. Some good stuff gets washed down the drain but generally these places are disgusting and foul.
On the third hand, I read the comments from my local small town newspaper. Despite the “anonymity” of user names, I can still recognize exactly who’s who and they still say outrageously offensive crap! Sometimes they even directly threaten each other by saying things like “I know where you live…” or “I’ll see you later, J.R., and we’ll finish this discussion man-to-man!” At this point, the Sheriff — who uses his real name and title — will comment, “I’ll be there, too.” It always makes me realize that a certain amount of intimidation is bluster/bluff and natural in all public forums.
Your local story reminds me of an updated version of the Andy Griffith Show.
other than an old username at daily Kos, i blog under my own name, or under brendancalling, which links to my site (and includes my name).
I believe this discourages me from being a total jackass, because whatever i write is tied to me.
I think anonymity is appropriate for a very small percentage of writers (whistleblowers and people who are risking their livelihoods to expose criminal and unethical behavior). I think real blogs (ie, anything that’s not connected to a newspaper or MSM source) should be able to set their own policy on anonymity. but at newspapers, where there are not only tons of readers but also a clear and consistent pattern of abuse, anonymity has led to a communication breakdown and has not added to the quality of discussion. the only way to clean up those sewers (and one has only to read the comments at any Philadelphia Inquirer or Daily new article to never want to visit the site again) is to make it impossible for people to make those comments anonymously, without consequence.
Now, don’t get me wrong: if someone wants to use racist language and lob ad hominem insults at writers they don’t agree with, that’s their right: but enabling them to do that under the cover of anonymity has never sat well with me. You should own your words.
As I stated above, I think we could guess with 98% accuracy what the political persuasion is of those who leave the abusive language.
My long standing Policy is that for “news” sites like TPM, or HuffPo you need to use your real name if you post on the front page. That’s the price of having the glory of front-page status. Everyone else I don’t carea bout.
But this is my real name!
I think it’s misleading to suggest that anonymity will or could go away on the Internet. There is no possible way that blogs could get the real identity of commenters, so pretending to do so only encourages a false sense of security.
You can tone things down to some extent by requiring a name and verified email address, as this site does, but email addresses are out there for the taking at thousands of sites. There’s nothing to stop trolls from registering multiple times with different names and addresses.
You can check IP addresses, but that casts suspicion, or, if carried to the extreme, shuts out those who post from coffee houses, libraries, or shared computers/devices. And IPs are easy enough to redirect by anybody who actually cares.
I’d also question what “anonymous” means in this age. My name is obviously not “DaveW”, though it may or may not reflect part of my real name. Same with “Steven D” and most of the other names used here. And yet I don’t consider myself anonymous because I use this name consistently and it’s the only one I use on politically/ideologically oriented sites. For the purposes of other site participants, for all practical purposes you know me, for better or worse, as well as you would if you knew my actual name, address, and social security number.
In a way the anonymity problem has an upside: smaller sites like this one, where participants do get to know each other, will continue to function as intended because they evolve into something like communities. We come to know what to expect from most posters. I think that’s a good thing, and where the Net’s real value as a discussion vehicle lies. BT is as near as we’ll get to an electronic bar where the regulars hang out and where the newbie is regarded with cordial wait-and-see.
The comment areas of megasites like Huffington and the newspapers are more like the grafittied bathrooms in a truckstop. People come and go, there’s no followup and no sense of continuity. That’s not all bad. Personally I like seeing what the raw effluent looks like from time to time. Somewhere inbetween the poles are big sites like DKos, where actual discussion is still possible if you’re willing to put up with a lot of crap and a fair amount of dedicated trolling.
Ratings, or at least troll ratings, help a little, but the ease of opening new accounts limits their usefulness. Since the WP will never know what commenters’ real names are, their statement seems ridiculous to me. Huffington’s ranking thing might make some sense, but again is easily defeated by determined multiple personalities. I have to wonder if this “new” issue is being floated as a preview of going to a pay system, which would limit trolling at the same time it limits participation to a limited demographic. I say let a thousand flowers bloom, since there’s really not much you can do to stop them.
So, the Washington Post wants to require commentors to post using their real name? When the Post makes available the home phone numbers and all the email addresses for its executives, reporters, and columnists, then I’ll consider it a fair trade. These creeps want to be able to squelch dissent while continuing to reside in their Shangri-La like existence remote from the problems their policies cause. It’s no wonder their almost extinct.