Huffington: Trolls Uglier Than Ever, So We're Cutting Off Anonymous Commenting 582
v3rgEz writes "The days of anonymous commenting on The Huffington Post are numbered. Founder Arianna Huffington said in a question-and-answer session with reporters in Boston Wednesday that the online news site plans to require users to comment on stories under their real names, beginning next month. 'Freedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what they’re saying and not hiding behind anonymity,' Huffington said."
Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, i am aware of the irony... but nevertheless I have always been in favor of this.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Although I think this is a stupid policy, I have a very simple answer. I won't bother posting comments on The Huffington Post. It's not like I give a shit about them in the first place.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I think this is a stupid policy, I have a very simple answer.
There is an even simpler solution: a moderation system. It seems to work pretty well for Slashdot. Moderation also works well for sites like Stackoverflow. I have never understood why news sites don't implement something similar. That way the good 1% of anonymous speech is available, and the 99% that is garbage is not seen by most readers (but is still there if anyone wants to read at -1).
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
The downside of moderation systems is seeing highly-rated horrible posts. On a messy free-for-all forum like 4chan, you expect horrible shit. It's far more jarring to see hateful ignorant trolling get +5 insightful. Every time, I reevaluate ever visiting Slashdot again. Moderation reveals the biases of your cohort.
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
The downside of moderation systems is seeing highly-rated horrible posts. On a messy free-for-all forum like 4chan, you expect horrible shit. It's far more jarring to see hateful ignorant trolling get +5 insightful. Every time, I reevaluate ever visiting Slashdot again.
Not sure why that is so shocking; hateful or not, it is apparently a widely held view in that case. Go to Bill O'Reilly's Facebook page and read through the comments, that gets pretty hateful, and is then Liked. It's also presumably not anonymous.
But you're right, if you only like free speech when it's something you agree with (or aren't offended by) then don't visit such a forum.
Re:Or down moderation (Score:5, Interesting)
Irony is a very dangerous thing if it isn't backed up by facial expression. There is a reason why professional journalists don't use it outside of polemic opinion pieces. If you want to avoid any misunderstanding you will have to say what you mean.
The same obviously goes for ironic sarcasm.
Humor itsself lives by its context. You will need to make sure everybody has the same context or you will also cause misunderstandings. You'll also have to keep in mind that context might be a cultural one. On the internet you will meet a lot of people in all walks of life, of any creed, of any nationality an presumably a couple of dogs. Don't expect to be funny to everybody no matter how hilarious you are. One person's humor is another person's troll.
Re:Or down moderation (Score:5, Funny)
Riiiight, I'm sure everyone's going to stop being sarcastic on the internet.
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with moderation systems is that they tend to support the populist view, which is not always the correct one. The premise is that posts will be moderated up for correctness and down for incorrectness, but this is not what happens, as the posts ending up at the top usually represent the prevailing ideological belief of the majority of users. Even meta moderation doesn't help much as these popular posts are then moderated back down using the same fallacies, resulting in a different position on the same false dichotomy.
For sites that want to foster honest discussion, I say strip away the moderation and 'reputation' systems, and leave it anonymous. If someone's position is the truth, there is nothing for him to worry about. The only reason someone might want to censor the truth is because a part of it clashes with his ideological/political/emotional position. This should be discouraged.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Moderation systems with anonymous comments allow everyone to say what they want. If the community downmod it, so be it. The posts are still posted, people can still read them.
Requiring people to register limits discourse.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Moderation, at least on slashdot, is not intended to find truth.
It's intended to promote discussion and hide trolls and abuse.
Moderators are supposed to up mod posts when they are on topic and interesting - there is no "-1 disagree" mod here.
I think this system would be best, if the moderators actually followed the rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with moderation systems is that they tend to support the populist view, which is not always the correct one.
The problem with that line is that it presupposes that there is one correct view. Who gets to decide what is correct?
The premise is that posts will be moderated up for correctness and down for incorrectness, but this is not what happens, as the posts ending up at the top usually represent the prevailing ideological belief of the majority of users
I disagree with your premise. Given that every individual invariably believes his own world view to be the correct one, I don't think its even workable. Further, the prevailing ideological belief of the majority is often reflected not just in forums, but in our society at large. Its just the way it works. I think we should strive for the more modest goal of ensuring that views that contradict the prevailing ideological belief of the majority at least get heard, which is achievable.
For sites that want to foster honest discussion, I say strip away the moderation and 'reputation' systems, and leave it anonymous.
I believe that would work counter to your intended effect, since the trolls effectively would have free reign to drown out any message that they deem 'incorrect'. Honest discussion cannot take place when other parties are working actively to prevent it, for example by spam posting, by posting vulgarities or inane comments, by burying posts and many other ways you should be familiar with.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with that line is that it presupposes that there is one correct view. Who gets to decide what is correct?
I think you're twisting the grandparent's words, the point was that truth is not a popularity contest. Moderation often leads to posts towing the party line being modded up and posts contradicting it being modded down, there's lots and lots of examples of groupthink and cliques of people reinforcing each other's opinion in a closed loop. That moderation also tends to "drown out any message they deem incorrect", just in a different way.
I disagree with your premise. Given that every individual invariably believes his own world view to be the correct one, I don't think its even workable.
Just because I overall disagree with your position there's still a difference between a cohoerent argument and incoherent rambling. Decisions are not black and white rather there are pros and cons, we just disagree on how severe and what matters the most. A forum looking to promote a meaningful discussion is looking to bring out informative facts, insightful arguments and relevant interesting subjects while trying to suppress the noise of disruptive trolls, ad hominem flamebait, things going totally off-topic and points that are entirely redundant so there's a good signal-to-noise ratio. It's not supposed to be."+1, Right" and "-1, Wrong", that's what polls are for and the moderation isn't supposed to be a mini-poll. It just gets abused that way.
As a moderator, I +mod posts I disagree with (Score:3)
I moderate up posts I disagree with simply if I think they make a good argument or provoke interesting discussion. After all, if you see what you think is a wrong point of view, it's useful to everyone for follow-up counter-arguments to be posted. I've even moderated up both sides of an argument just because it's a good argument.
In particular, I've moderated up a lot of posts citing objections against nuclear power even though I think nuclear power is our best CO2-minimal energy source for baseline load.
I
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I realise it's possible for this to be abused, so I would suggest the capability should be restricted to those with karma at the top of the scale who have a track record of not typically using all their mod points.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty comfortable with the mod system slashdot uses, and yes, I browse at -1 and put up with some real garbage to see such things as anon coward posts that are still being unfairly downrated (when you start at 0, it doesn't take much to move you to the very bottom under this system).
The only thing I could see along the lines you describe is if there were some people given special points to take the straightforward total trash to negative 2 (and yes, people could choose to browse at -2 to see even those). I'm visualizing some sort of mod that was only to be used when its some specific repeating annoyance, such as the bit about Golden Girls/Cosmonaut, GNAA, the public restroom story or goatse/tubgirl or similar.
I don't want people, however well intentioned, to be able to move something that's a one time, non-repeating bad post or troll or maybe just somebody who's an honest jerk arbitrarily low, but when its something the community has had time to consider and it just keeps repeating, having it vanish into the wilderness below -1 might be the best thing. I probably fit the people you describe - karma at top, sometimes use all my mod points, often don't - but I really don't want the power to push just any fool post to negative infinity or whatever, for fear even people with excellent karma, a history of promoting rather than demoting, and all those other good things will push something sarcastic, or sardonic, or just not easily parsed, into that same limbo.
Give me that power, and I might clean up more junk, but then somebody would post something I'd take literally, and miss a common cultural reference and I'd end up condemning a perfectly cromulent post. (I'm in my mid 50's dammit, do you want to give me some kind of authority when I probably don't even know any of your favorite bands, watch any of the hot shows (TV's a vast wasteland again now that Fringe is over), and barely tolerate Superhero films or any Bond since Connery? (And get off my lawn, dammit!)
Re: (Score:3)
Opinions vary wildly on what is good moderation so personally I think a social moderation system would be the ultimate in moderation. Make it exceptionally easy to rate comments, then create a connection network where users get connected to and trust each others moderation based on how similarly they rated various comments.
You'll have an incentive to moderate and you bypass the entire problem of trying to objectively rate comments; each user gets to see what they prefer. Don't want the utter crap deleted? T
Re: (Score:3)
And you don't see any problem with feeding people's confirmation bias by keeping them from seeing any opinion they might disagree with?
So racist comments go unchallenged because they're only
Re: (Score:3)
So why browse at -1? Would you rather wade through GNAA posts to get to whatever gems you presumably think are undeservedly modded -1 Troll, or have said gems deleted altogether?
And since these particular graffiti are located in a back alley no one ente
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it works fairly well. I frequently come across posts which are obviously unpopular with the majority of slashdot users (for example, advocating government surveillance). The fact that I can still read it, and/or that it is part of a chain of back-and-forth arguments which are not censored/deleted speaks well of the system.
It might just be personal bias; if you are predisposed towards thinking that unpopular posts will be censored, invariably your mind will fixate on picking up examples of that sort, ignoring the other occasions when censorship did not take place.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am posting under a pseudonym... or well, rather my school nickname. So I feel the irony too. But yeah, fuck anonymity, if you are going to say something, fucking stand behind it, dont be a total cunt.
~ Laurie Chilvers
Re: Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone should have told snowden and manning that.
Oh wait, they did. Sometimes something needs to be said but saying it could be worse for you than what needs pointed out. Some times an anonymouse post saying does so and so look pregnant is better then a husband saying why are you getting fat.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
How does signing a post with a real name have anything in the slightest to do with standing behind what you say? From a purely logical perspective it adds nothing of value expect maybe an improved ability to make ad hominem attacks. And even if we ignore the extreme difficulty of verifying the supposed real name, real names don't even attempt to be unique. I most certainly do not stand behind things written by people who share my name and yet you have no way of distinguishing me from the author.
In short, a real name adds nothing but confusion. Now, maybe if you attach a publicly visible address to the name the you could improve upon a simple email address in terms of identification. However, chances are that the only additional standing up you'll be doing in that case is in response to getting swatted [wikipedia.org] by some clown.
Personally, I'm plenty happy to "fucking stand behind" my comments in the forum where I make them. I feel no need to sign my posts "come at me (or someone with a similar name) bro".
~ Artraze on Slashdot
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but real names will allow the mob to chase and shame you on facebook and linkedin, potentially ruining you for saying things that the mob doesn't like. I get voted down often on NPR for making the case that Affirmative Action hurts Asian American students, and have been banned from a section of that site recently for trying to point out the flawed narrative underlying the Zimmerman coverage.
It's so very easy for people to shout racist (for the left) or socialist (right) or whatever stupid label, and just try to silence you with shame. I firmly believe that an honorable person would agree that it is better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to condemn an innocent, but it seems these sites that demand real names would rather sacrifice as many innocents as needed in order to eliminate the guilty.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Informative)
The truth doesn't need anyone 'standing behind it.' It is self evident. Individuals (or societies) who ignore it will end up chewed apart by it eventually. Whether the argument is made by 'anonymous' or 'john smith' is immaterial.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
it seems you can actually ban all your readers, if you try hard enough!
No, moderation can get rid of 90% of your readers. To remove the final 10% you really need a pay-wall
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-anonymous people just say stuff like this so they have an actual target to defame while they cry their crocodile tears of 'victimhood'. It doesn't matter who said what. It matters what was said. In free societies, a culture should be expected to separate the message from the presentation. The truth stands on its own.
They can do what they like with their site of course, but they're kidding themselves if they think this will bring better discourse. When it comes to controversial subjects, the term 'troll' is hurled as an ad hominem all too often, and this 'logic' is used by moderators as justifications to delete posts/ban users.
Re: (Score:3)
You can bet that before the revolution, before the congress, before there was a country, and they were still operating under the king's rule, the principals were VERY anonymous with their communication to other would-be interested parties. Without it, the revolution would not have gotten off the ground. Anonymous communication and broadcast is a key component of liberty. I find it very interesting that the ones railing against it are usually those who have something to lose when the smoke is blown away a
Likely its about selling ads (Score:3)
I doubt its about cleaning up the comments section.
AOL, the parent company of HuffPo, is currently refocusing its business on driving ad sales [nytimes.com].
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
You should have seen the funny look the judge gave me when I legally changed my name to 'HornWumpus'.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, no need to work it out in court ;)
There's a much easier workaround here:
"Hi, my name is Angela Jenkins, and I think..." {-- insert troll comment here}
(hint: My name damned sure isn't Angela.)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason for anonymous voting, you know.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell that to the founding fathers and the many many anonymously written and distributed pamphlets that stirred public sentiment for the cause of rebellion/revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Anonymous_speech [wikipedia.org]
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of Americans who have a clue about such things is vanishingly small, and they are vastly outnumbered by those who don't *want* Americans to know such things.
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that your real name? Does it even matter when considering your point?
Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment on stories under their *facebook accounts.... Nice try, they are simply using this as an excuse to expand their advertising market.
Anonymous Cowards (Score:3, Insightful)
This would, of course, be news to Publius (Patrick Henry).
Re: (Score:3)
This would, of course, be news to Publius (Patrick Henry).
I agree with the principal you're expressing here.
./, Digg, Redit, other forum or to make your own website ridiculing the HuffPo under a pseudonym or assumed name.
But it doesn't apply because this is done by the HuffPo on the HuffPo's site only. It doesn't restrict your freedom of speech to get on
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's what they wanted you to think!
Real names? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's the thing, you don't need John Q. Public to know the identity of the people posting, at most the moderators need that information. And even then, what you really need is a snail main address as there are probably dozens of H. Edwardses out there. Or John Smith, Jack Johnson, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the draws to these revenue generating sites is being able to comment. I suspect that when push comes to shove, many anonymous commenters won't bother to comment any more, nor visit the site and read the articles. This will affect the HP's bottom line.
It is a free country, and they can do as the see fit. Even if it costs them money in the long run.
Re:Real names? (Score:4, Interesting)
Real names is designed to do one thing and one thing only, promote corporate approved commenting. There are huge numbers of people who cannot comment in the way they would prefer simply because it goes against the preferences of their autocratic employers and this quite simply will silence them, which is it's intent.
Of course this will be the death knell of the Huffington Post, turning it into a hollow echo chamber commenting to it's own corporate propaganda. It's comment deletion system has long since shown at bias to the corruption at the top.
Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Judge the message by its own merit, rather than person/pseudo-name that is saying it.
Pseudonymity in the age of data aggregation (Score:5, Insightful)
You are nuts if you post anything, anywhere under real name. Internet has no "right to forget".
I have long wondered... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have wondered over the last few years why more big-name general news sites around the world don't just shut down their comment systems. The comments attached to virtually any major TV news network site or newspaper site tend to be filled with content that does little if anything to actually further any sort of discussion or dissemination of knowledge about the topic at hand.
I have noticed recently some of the sites I follow daily have started to only selectively permit commenting on stories. Stories which are likely to bring out the trolls and bigots seem to have commenting disabled more and more. However, I'm not sure why these news sites don't just bite the bullet and dismantle the comments attached to stories. Nobody seems to ever benefit from them.
(Obviously, something like /. which is centred around discussion and commenting is a somewhat different beast. I am specifically talking about general news outlets like CBC News [cbc.ca], The Toronto Star [thestar.com], or CNN.com [cnn.com], and others like them. /. naturally also has the benefit of community-driven moderation to limit trolling, flamebait, and spam).
Yaz
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They like comments because they can sometimes get more information about the story of someone who may be more involved in it.
It opens the possibility to learn of new stories or ideas to further create journalism.
But how often does this actually happen? And does it happen more than if they simply provide a form to privately e-mail them with your comments on a story?
99.99% of the time the comments against such stories provide nothing towards the story (and I'm willing to bet that percentage is a low estimate). I'm not sure having such commenting systems (and the back-end manual moderation systems that are often in place to support them) is of any real economic benefit to such news sites. Sure, specialized sites li
I call Bullshit and offer this bet. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, until they make that a 20 year mandatory prison crime.
Trolls uglier than ever... (Score:5, Funny)
Well she's not exactly getting any more beautiful herself either..
Their admins are the worst trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
I had my account deleted years ago when they went from a news site to an agenda site. I've very liberal mind you, and even I had comments deleted that didn't match the party line (including reminding everyone under a feel-good article that Gavin Newsome had cheated with an employee's wife and wasn't some kind of saint). I just couldn't tolerate the naked agenda-driven slant and how even other liberal opinions weren't accepted. I've had admins jump into threads and argue with me and threaten deletions. I've been online since 1991 and that's the only time I've had an account wiped, so I'm no troll. I haven't tried commenting out there in years, so I don't know what there forums are like now.
Re: (Score:3)
It's no secret that HuffPo is the left-wing equivalent of Fox News (and I say that as a leftie!). Really, I don't see the point... I mean, a good half of their articles are outright flamebait, so if you're not commenting them to flame/troll, then they might as well just remove the comments altogether.
Re: (Score:3)
Son, you're doing it wrong--there's a whole Internet out there, where it's easy to find much nicer boobs than Arianna's.
The USA was founded on Anonymous Comments (Score:5, Informative)
The USA was founded by use of Anonymous Pamphleteers. The British desperately want the Colonists to use their real names. The British wanted to arrest, imprison and execute these Anonymous Pamphleteers. Were it not for anonymous posting, there would be no USA.
The USA Constitution provides for "freedom of speech". Speech cannot be free under an oppressive or tyrannical political system without anonymity.
While Huffinton may want people to be "civil", she is actually contributing to the destruction of both civility and freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
First and foremost, Ariana Huffington is not the government. Otherwise there'd be a lot more sideboob in Congress...
Beyond that, those anonymous pamphleteers you mentioned got their works published because the owners of the printing presses consented to the publishing of the specific tracts in question; Whether or not they printed a particular piece by a particular person was wholly by their own prerogative. Here, Huffington owns the printing-press equivalent, and has decided to limit the use of her resou
Easy for Her to Say (Score:5, Informative)
If I was independently wealthy too, it would be easy to post under my real name and damn the consequences.
Most of us have to work though, and are at the mercy of the Arianna Huffington's of the world for employment. As long as my future employment is contingent on what people like her think about whatever comes up when my name is googled, I'm not free to speak under my real name.
Unlikely. (Score:3)
" require users to comment on stories under their real names,"
Proven by what? The last time I had to prove my identity online was that I had to photocopy my ID so I could get an account on the Chebucto Freenet.
Remember freenets?
My "online identity" of "BMO"/"Boyle M. Owl" goes back to the 80s on dialup BBSes (in snow, uphill both ways). It's mine. I use it. Tough titties.
You don't like my alias? Fine. I'll use another one. It's up to you to find out that it's fake. Good. Luck. With. That.
--
BMO
Re:Unlikely. (Score:4, Funny)
I've been posting here under this name for the last 10,000 years and I see no reason to stop now.
Freedom of expression is given... (Score:3)
'Freedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what they’re saying and not hiding behind anonymity,'
Fuck you. It's a human right. Happens to be protected by our constitution, but that's not where it comes from either.
You (Arianna Huffington) are a sanctimonious twit to sit there and dictate terms under which freedom of expression is "given".
Obligatory XKCD (Score:4, Informative)
Come on... (Score:3)
How they gonna check "real names"? I got a million of 'em. Even Google and Facebook gave up on that notion when they realized it wouldn't work.
If the operators of this website think they're smarter than the collective will of the Internet, they're in for a rude awakening.
This should be funny (Score:3)
I wonder if Ms. Huffington is aware that many jobs, including those involving the Canadian government, are very picky about what you can say on-line. This extends far past criticizing the boss or bad-mouthing your employer's hiring policies. It can involve political issues, matters of faith and personal opinions. I am one of the people who is not able to comment freely here, there, or anywhere else under my own name. So if AOL (the real owner of Huffington Post) insists on this, I'll terminate my long-time, high fan base account immediately.
I don't imagine I'll be the only one.
Some pints on anonymity, reputation and moderation (Score:4, Insightful)
1) People who Have So Much Money That Nothing Can Hurt Them like Huffington should consider what happens to people in the REAL world if they voice opinions unpopular with their co-workers, employers, neighbors or government. Where my wife works it's THIS far from a liberal/conservative political food fight on some days and if her REAL opinions ever became known, she'd be out of her job at the machinations of her co-workers, without a doubt.
So I guess Rich Bitch Huffy is telling my wife that she's not welcome to post at Huffpo. Atta' way to shut people up once and for all on just those topics- controversial ones- in which the polity presumably needs access to the widest opinions possible.
Oh and by the way, my wife NEEDS her job and isn't going to find another one like it somewhere else. Enough said.
Not to mention that if people ever were known for publicly supporting activities which were illegal - like smoking dope or same sex marriage - then they wouldn't come out in support of such things since even supporting them, back int he day, was basically a job/neighbor/family death sentence. So on THOSE topics there would be even less discussion, even fewer people relating real experiences. What we would have left to read would be the jingoistic tropes of the day and the crassest forms of majoritarianism
This "if you believe in what you're saying, then you'll sign your name to it" bullshit are just manipulative ploys used by elites to try to shame people whose speech they don't like,
I think that we can now also add to that traditional motivation another one- the motivation to increase your profit from your website. By being able to assure buyers of your sites' REAL product, the sentiment analysis, consumer analytics and personality dossiers you sell- that you know the real, actual names attached to those products, you can command a higher price than aggregated, mass statistics and genericized profiles can command.
Let's face it. Employers really want to know who's going to work 80 hours a wek for peanuts, never complain, keep their mouths shut about law breaking they see and never ask for a raise. They want to know who the bitches are and who the OTHER ones are who think they deserve, you know, a life, a raise, some vacation, some decent treatment If Huffpo can deliver those first names to them and also deliver to them the names of the people who must be kept unemployed, then Huffpo has finally found a business model other than selling itself to yet richer owners and cashing out the current ones.
As far as moderation goes, Slashdot has it just right. Give random, people limited ability to mod posts. Let people post AC if they see fit. Don't let people disappear other people's thoughts under any circumstances. Don't reward higher usage with special and increasing god powers - this is the mistake StackExchange made- because it attracts losers with power issues like flies to shit and basically you've got a Survivor-style dynamic on your hands where alliances form and favors are passed around and it all gets very personal and petty very fast.
One thing that always good is if you can elect to never see posts form someone again. Trolls go on talking , but only to themselves. Salon had this and it was great. The user experience improved because you didn't have to deal with the trolls who spent all their time there picking fights and being obnoxious. You never saw their posts. Nice. Then Salon went "must log in , no anonymous speech " and I left and never wen back.
Anonymous speech is completely foundational to truth telling , to speaking truth to power, to organizing and to broad societal change. Elites have always called it the mark of cowardice. If you ever find yourself holding that opinion, pat yourself on the back because while you may be a piece of shit, you've nevertheless made it in America.
Re:Some pints on anonymity, reputation and moderat (Score:4, Insightful)
This "if you believe in what you're saying, then you'll sign your name to it" bullshit are just manipulative ploys used by elites to try to shame people whose speech they don't like,
There's also the question how common your name is. There are two people with my real name in Germany, eleven with my last name in all of Britain and none with the same first name. My wife's name is most likely unique in the world. Much easier for Joe Smith to post under his real name than me.
Cutting off anonymity... (Score:4, Insightful)
..means that those who will be punished for what they say will be quiet. (Or punished.)
If you think this is a good thing you have a very limited knowledge of history.
The majority is almost always hostile to the truth.
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (Score:5, Funny)
Identify yourself or be laughed at and ridiculed.
I agree completely!
AC
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Those cowardly founding fathers!
>The authors used the pseudonym "Publius", in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Identify yourself...
and get shot... http://mashable.com/2011/11/10/mexico-blogger/ [mashable.com]
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everyone wants to express an opposing view point on Huffington and be called a racist, or be labeled as such. Lets be honest here, Huffington super users are the first to pull the racist card the moment their arguments get refuted. (with maybe the exception of MSNBC comment sections)
Re: If you are afraid to be known for your commen (Score:3, Insightful)
When "i don't agree with obamacare" is equal to being a racist, your comment is a joke. Seriously, not agreeing with the president is considered racist now. Its a WTF moment all the way around.
Re: If you are afraid to be known for your commen (Score:4, Insightful)
When "i don't agree with obamacare" is equal to being a racist, your comment is a joke. Seriously, not agreeing with the president is considered racist now. Its a WTF moment all the way around.
Actually it's not, but you want to make this connection to silence those who would call out the inaccuracies or fallacies of your view.
What you are doing is "poisoning the well" by trying to attack the legitimacy of those who would argue against your views before they do so.
A lot of people poison the well when they want to say something they know is obviously wrong. Odd that you would mention racism as poisoning the well is one of their favourite tactics to avoid being called out on obvious racism I.E. "It's not racist to say bad things about black people if its true. Disagreeing with this is just Political Correctness gone mad... But all them niggers are layabouts, drunks and criminals". In this example the racist attempts to vilify the critics before using an obviously racist statement to prevent being called out on obvious racism.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The Democratic-leaning polling firm, which provided its results to Talking Points Memo....
If, as anyone looking for the poll should do, you clicked the link... you were taken here: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-louisiana-gopers-unsure-if-katrina-response-was [talkingpointsmemo.com]
At that point, you have access to the poll answers in question, the entire poll, as well as links to the shorter one of those as a download from Scribd. At what point d
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (Score:5, Funny)
You are assuming everyone who is reading your comments is equally reasonable.
YOU ARE WRONG AND I WILL MURDER YOUR FAMILY!!!!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't post under your real name, so we should ignore your comment too. Posting anonymously is not a sign of fear, nor of ill-considered comments, but merely that you are keeping that part of the internet separate from your real life.
*Note: This is a real name policy discussed, not a must have a community identity policy.
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (Score:5, Insightful)
There are occasionally exceptions where people *need* to remain anonymous for fear of lawsuits or termination from their jobs
This is not nearly so rare as you imagine.
Re: (Score:3)
I largely agree with you.
However, those exceptions are so important, they may outweigh the benefit of having less trolls.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
did your mother name you "msobkow"?
you brag in your profile about being a "programmer" that retired on disability... yet you post on this website pretty much constantly... what more does programming require than typing on a computer? maybe you should have remained anonymous and not brazenly advertised your act of fraud against the public.
looks like you got to identify yourself AND be laughed at and ridiculed... but i understand how it's easy for "disabled" programmers to make such simple logical mistakes.
y
Re: (Score:2)
unless you're worried about getting arrested by the NSA/DEA/CSIS/government-agency-of-your-choice.
Wasn't the government supposed to be afraid of me, not the other way around?
Re: (Score:2)
That was before they limited our 2nd amendment right to own tanks, drones, and suitcase nukes. Now they don't have much to fear especially with the militarized police
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, the fringe folks that need protection often times post and publish anonymously. Unfortunately, there's no way of deciding who should and shouldn't be permitted that freedom without shutting some that need the protection.
In Nazi Germany it was a potentially fatal mistake to publish materials that questioned Hitler's motives and intent. In the US, you could wind up losing everything you had if you wound up on the Blacklist during the Red Scare.
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous isn't the same thing as pseudonymous. I have a lot more invested in "seebs" than I do in the name on my driver's license.
Even ignoring that, though... Your point is still ill-considered. The "lawsuits" and "termination" are just where it starts; the world is full of people who are going to be threatened with all sorts of things if they identify themselves. And, of course, you can provide for that, but if the way you provide for it involves people having to prove to someone else that their reason is good enough, that can also effectively "out" them.
So far, if I compare all the things I've ever read from people who insist that anyone not identified by a "real name" isn't serious or real, and all the things I've ever read under arbitrary pseudonyms, the latter have been a much, much, more valuable resource.
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (Score:5, Insightful)
That is silly. One of the great features of the internet is that you can debate freely and anonymously. I don't want everything I say or have ever said turned into a googlable permanent record. I sometimes change my mind. I sometimes say stupid things. I sometimes make "too soon?" jokes. I don't want permanent records of every utterance. Online forums are places for informal discussions. If I tell you a dirty joke after work, it doesn't get indexed for the next 20 years. I'm not writing a law school dissertation on how I feel about the 2nd amendment with every post. And, I don't want my silly or crude Kristen Stewart jokes showing up when an employer looks me up. This is probably nothing more than analytics and adding another notch in your marketing profile. It's simple to do what Slashdot does and allow the community to self-police. Mod the trolls out of existence and there's no problem.
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (Score:4, Insightful)
If you aren't afraid to be known for your comments, then you haven't been on the internet long enough, IMHO. Are you old enough to remember what happens on harmless-seeming newsgroups? A simpe discussion of gardening tips can suddenly erupt into threats of cross-country trips to perform physical violence. Lessons learned as a 3rd-hand bystander: always post anonymously (or at least pseudonymously). Always.
Cyber-bullying, cyberstalkers, and internet vigilantes are much worse for society than trolls. Trolls can be modded into oblivion, and most trolls don't have access to multiple IP addresses, so they're very easy to squelch.
Slashdot's sensible AC policy is the main reason I still visit here after 13 years.
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I understand that, but I might not want those hastily crafted ideas to show up under a search for my name from google. Many of my opinions are unpopular and unrelated to anything I do for work. But, I don't want future employers to disqualify me because of them.
Re: (Score:3)
I do love to see a comment bouncing up and down from troll to insightful as the "-1 disagree" malcontents fight with the "+1 made me think" supporters. :)
I also enjoy reading the -1 posts that follow below, especially the vitriolic bile that spews from the true trolls who can't come up with an actual constructive statement or argument. When they "flame" me with their hatred, it means they can't argue with me -- I've won the debate.
But most of all, I enjoy reading the counterpoints that make me think.
Re: (Score:2)
this means they will end all 'moderation' and run for cover under the real name 'solution'. It won't mean that HP will stop promoting antisemitism and other hate speech though so it will fascinating to read reports when all their favorites, super users and 'moderators' are openly threatened with death and in some cases murdered in response to the hate speech HP is so fond of promoting.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN's comments are equally terrible. It's hard to believe a reputable news organization allows them on its website.
Re:Does this mean no more trolling homeopathic cra (Score:5, Funny)
Those homeosexuals can quit exchanging their extremely diluted bodily fluids and get back in the closet
Re: (Score:3)
What is the condition where a person thinks a word has a different meaning because it sounds like something totally unrelated?
Homonymic?
Re:Does this mean no more trolling homeopathic cra (Score:4, Funny)
What is the condition where a person thinks a word has a different meaning because it sounds like something totally unrelated?
Homonymic?
Why did you have to bring gay people into this, you insensitive clod?!?
Re:Does this mean no more trolling homeopathic cra (Score:5, Funny)
What is the condition where a person thinks a word has a different meaning because it sounds like something totally unrelated?
Ignorance. It's a fairly common affliction.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can assign a low base score for ACs, and then filter them out using the score filter. That's the right kind of system: it doesn't preclude them from saying things if they have things to say, nor from people volunteering to hear them, but it doesn't require you to listen if you don't want to.