Gawker Media To Require Commenters' Facebook, Twitter, Or Google Logins 231
First time accepted submitter wynterwynd writes "In a move that seems to be in line with Gawker Media founder Nick Denton's opinion of his sites' commenters, some Gawker Media sites are now instructing their commenters that they will have to link their Gawker commenter ID with their Facebook, Twitter, or Google accounts in order to log in. Is this really a good idea, considering the security issues Gawker has had in the past? Per the article, for 'security purposes' Gawker is 'putting our account security layer in the hands of some of the best in the business — major sites with more security expertise and resources than anyone else on the web.' To my mind, it's hard to see this as anything but a grab to milk Gawker commenters' social networking accounts for targeted ad revenue — which really shouldn't be a surpirse considering Denton's contempt for most of the Gawker community. Is this a step too far for an online community? Is it a cash grab or a genuine effort to encourage secure and responsible posting?"
Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
Add Gawker to the same list the New York Times is on. That is, "pass."
Well that's one less site I will comment on (Score:5, Insightful)
The privacy issues alone are a big deal, but sometimes you want to say something that you can't have directly linked back to yourself (for various reasons). I'm not defending criminal activity or hate speech, but I could think of examples where expressing your view could cause issues because of your religion / country of residence / association with others etc.
Any site doing this needs their head examined... (Score:4, Insightful)
Call me naive, but I have no idea why websites like using other social networks for authentication. Is there something so secure that I can trust Facebook with any and all logins and passwords for not just me, but all my users?
Yes, FB and Google have two factor authentication as options, but when it comes to making sure my users have basic security, I'd rather pack my own parachute, and have a dedicated appliance store username/password hashes so if someone owns the rest of my boxes, they can't just scoop out passwords that can be used at other sites.
Maybe this can be a market niche -- a site offering not just OpenID, but a custom API like the old Microsoft Passport allowing people to authenticate from that site, optionally using an app or SecurID key fob.
I refuse to share my Real Name (Score:5, Insightful)
I refuse to link facebook or twitter or any other account that has my real name. If I can't login under an Email handle/alias then I simply don't post on that website.
Sorry gawker. You lost my business/ad views.
Where's the cash grab tie in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you let Google handle the login [google.com] doesn't mean Gawker gets anything more from you than an email address which you were already obligated to provide in the past. And since Gmail is already great at handling spam, there is precious little opportunity for Gawker to profit from this by selling your email address. Spamming Gmail accounts is already a fools errand.
At least in Google's case, they glean nothing either, other than the fact that you use Gawker, but any advertising revenue that comes to google via that knowledge goes to Google, and not Gawker. All they provide Gawker is a YES or NO answer when you ask to log in.
Given the rapidity with which one can create gmail/facebook/twitter accounts it won't assure "secure and responsible" posting either. Its easy enough to have an account that is reserved for such postings, even one per web-site if you want.
All this does is allow Gawker to off-load all user account stuff to some other entity, making them less of a hacking target, because there will be Nothing Much There to Gain. (Some would say this is an attribute of Gawker Media in general.) Having one less web site holding my passwords in an insecure database is a plus as far as I am concerned.
Lifehacker (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wish someone would buy Lifehacker. I really like it but not Gawker.
Re:Lifehacker (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone did buy Lifehacker. Unfortunately, it was Gawker. I liked them a lot better back when Gina was still around and Gawker wasn't their corporate overlord.
Thansk for the warning (Score:4, Insightful)
on telling us your devs are not capable of doing their jobs and letting me know I can't use your site because I don't want to use any of the social sites.
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
The St. Paul Pioneer Press went this way last year. Unsurprisingly, participation in the comments has dropped to near zero.
I can see why companies do it - this saves them the trouble of moderation, as people moderate themselves when their real names are used and they conceivably could face real-life consequences for what they post. Is real-life intimidation really the best way to police comments? Certainly not if you want more participation...
I don't have an issue with it. I think the most important right we have online is the right to remain anonymous. I don't want an employer or anyone else to look at my comments on news or sports and judge my worthiness as an employee by them - which is why I simply choose not to participate when companies choose not to allow anonymity.
Re:Well that's one less site I will comment on (Score:5, Insightful)
It has long been held by philosophers and courts that one of the keys to "free speech" is the option of anonymous speech. If you can't give your opinion anonymously, then there's no way you can be sure there will be no retribution.
Re:Okay... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention...not everyone has a Facebook or Google+ or Twitter or...xyz social network account.
I find it interesting that these two sites assume everyone that is on their forums have FB, etc accounts....are there other sites out there following this assumption? The assume you have a 3rd party membership established so you can use their forum/services???
Why would anyone limit themselves based on that type assumption?
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Any site doing this needs their head examined.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't want this.
It's none of Google's business what I do on Nick Denton's sites. And it's none of Nick Denton's business what my G+/Y!/FB profile was.
If I had any use for Gawker Media, all it means is that I'd have to set up yet another browser profile and associate that with whatever disposable email address I'd originally created for use with his sites.
Anyone who gives a damn about security or privacy issues knows the value of compartmentalization, and ought to be rightfully resentful of any attempt to bridge unrelated accounts.
Re:Okay... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure that ABC Newspaper loves when you comment on an article, and their name and a link to the site gets posted on your profile, and on everyone you know's timelines. (200 people? 500 people?)
They can't pay for that kind of personal advertising.