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."
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (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.
you're an idiot.
Re:Awesome (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
Tell that to the founding fathers. (Score:2, Interesting)
If we performed the modern equivalent of the kind of asymmetric warfare they used against the british nowadays, even a militarized police force wouldn't stop us.
The problems of course being: sufficient numbers of citizens believing there's something wrong, and a sufficient number of experienced personnel to train them in warfare techniques.
One of the minor little things often overlooked in the modern 'terrorism-mania' is that in fact the british considered and CALLED the revolutionaries 'terrorists' in their own letters from the revolutionary war.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
How do they enforce it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the same Huffington Post that hypocritcally moderates every thread to shape the discussion in favor of their own personal political agenda?
Yes and it is easy to test as well. Post a few posts criticizing Obama (using polite language) in appropriate articles and then post exactly the same posts but replacing Obama with any Republican. Every single post about a Republican will get through but most of those mentioning about Obama will never get posted. Not to mention the childish inanity of the majority of posts there and it validates what Breitbart said about Huffpo: that he is glad he set it up for Arianna because it shows liberals for what they are, a bunch of naive, hateful and ignorant spoiled children.
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.
Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Awesome (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, 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: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:Awesome (Score:1, Interesting)
I agree with you. Maybe there needs to be a -2 level, where the junk can go. Make some erudite,established, regular /. users Benevolent Dictators who get a nuke button as they browse the comments - one click and it's in the trash. Of course, then someone still has to go through the trash from time to time and check for abuse. And so someone has to check the trash checkers. It's moderation all the way down! But no, I think we can do better and it's necessary to subjectively apply some order, some QUALITY to something that is used in a relatively friendly, intelligent and enjoyable manner by the vast majority of its users.
For sure, web comment tree design must evolve. It's becoming the bulk of the content on the web.
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.