Montana Newspaper Plans To Out Anonymous Commenters Retroactively (washingtonpost.com) 246
HughPickens.com writes: Eugene Volokh reports at the Washington Post that in a stunning policy shift, The Montana Standard, a daily newspaper in Butte, Montana, has decided to replace commenters' pseudonyms with their real names. "The kicker here is that the change is retroactive," writes Paul Alan Levy. "Apparently unwilling to part with the wealth of comments that are already posted on its web site under the old policy, but also, apparently, unwilling to configure its software so that comments posted before the new policy is implemented remain under the chosen screen names, the Standard announces that past comments will suddenly appear using the users' real names unless users contact the paper no later than December 26 to ask that their comments be removed." In a November 12 editorial outlining the new real-name policy, the newspaper said, "We have encountered consistent difficulty with posts that exceed the bounds of civil discourse — as have many sites where comments from anonymous posters are allowed."
The paper's new policy has proven controversial among readers. "This is the end of open and honest comments on this site," wrote one user, who goes by the name BGF. "It is easy to put your name to your comments if you are retired. But it is another thing altogether if you have to worry about upsetting your peers and bosses at work." The newspaper editor, David McCumber, says he has extensively investigated the feasibility of configuring the newspaper's software to keep comments posted before the new policy is implemented under the chosen screen names. He says he was told by his content-management software experts that such a configuration is impossible. "Based on that, I am trying to do what is most equitable to all of our readers," says McCumber. "When a relatively small city is at the center of your market, just about everybody commented about is known, and the anonymous comments sting."
The paper's new policy has proven controversial among readers. "This is the end of open and honest comments on this site," wrote one user, who goes by the name BGF. "It is easy to put your name to your comments if you are retired. But it is another thing altogether if you have to worry about upsetting your peers and bosses at work." The newspaper editor, David McCumber, says he has extensively investigated the feasibility of configuring the newspaper's software to keep comments posted before the new policy is implemented under the chosen screen names. He says he was told by his content-management software experts that such a configuration is impossible. "Based on that, I am trying to do what is most equitable to all of our readers," says McCumber. "When a relatively small city is at the center of your market, just about everybody commented about is known, and the anonymous comments sting."
Implying .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But..but...my name really is Captain Morgan! ...you dare to doubt the Captain?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a real Captain Kirk. The only thing keeping him from commanding the next Enterprise is the fact that he isn't an aviator.
Re: (Score:2)
Prepaid cards don't require ID. Give 'em any name you like, and use a burner email account.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Implying .. (Score:2, Funny)
I always use my real name, and sign my posts accordingly. I even include my town of residence.
Respectfully, Charles Caroll of Carollton.
Isn't this why computers are great (Score:4, Insightful)
this should be as simple as testing comment date if less than transition date then post pseudonyms.
Not sure why some people have computers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly this is a shot across the bow that's aimed a little too low. Of course they could solve this easily without making the new policy retroactive. They don't want to. Even if they are "forced" to make an about face now, the message is understood: "We know who you are. Be civil or else..."
It's astonishing how many people in journalism don't understand the importance of anonymity. You can have a civil discourse without it, but if you are at all interested in hearing what people really think, there is no s
Re: (Score:2)
You think the comments section of a newspaper's website has anything to do with journalism?
Have you ever read comments sections? Put your waders on.
Re: (Score:2)
If the paper's content was journalism, most people wouldn't bother commenting. The problem is that most 'journalism' today is yellow at best. Nothing incites commentary like propagandists pretending to be journalists.
Re: (Score:3)
Please find me a definition of "journalism" that includes free expression for people who have absolutely nothing to do with journalism.
Using the N-word in a comments section, doesn't make you a journalist. Calling Obama a "muslin" in a comments section doesn't make you a journalist.
Re: (Score:2)
"Journalism" isn't "what reporters do", but narration of the "facts on the ground". Facts in quotes, since shortly after an event, when the news is hot, we rarely know the truth of anything. (Heck, is Obama a Muslim? I think he's more of a Muslim than Bill Clinton was a Christian: that's a religious group he wouldn't mind political support from, isn't going to actively antagonize, and will occasionally give a nod to in a speech.)
Comments sections often call out mistakes in reporting (and it's basically a
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
Exactly!
OK, sometimes you have to go to blogs related to the news to find the commenters pointing out that the story lacked even the basic fact-checking of Google and Wikipedia, but I've seen the same on the story itself
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
Common knowledge, it doesn't require a citation. Want a recent pop culture example? The Zoe Post, and examine the media's stories on it. In nearly every case, the stories are factually wrong, even though the story will cite(the zoe post) and make incorrect statements and claim they're factual.
Re: (Score:2)
'The point' has nothing to do with journalism at all. It has to do with the internet providing a place where people can discuss what was said by journalists. This used to be celebrated as a new form of free expression. Now, the trend is to silence criticism of narratives. This is not good.
The papers can do what they like of course but that doesn't mean their newfound intolerance of criticism is a good thing for free society. A free, objective press is critical to its health.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like this one? In case you haven't noticed, there is an endless number of places where people can discuss what is said by journalists. It doesn't mean the journalists have to provide one.
And yet, here you are criticizing the fact that there is intolerance of
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't have to. It's just better for society if they do. The fact that many so-called journalists and their employers no longer want to speaks volumes.
Yes. The flaw is you cannot tell the difference between stating what is true, and what should happen.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how the Founding Fathers managed, since their books, pamphlets, newspapers didn't have comments sections.
I'm still waiting for a single citation of a comments section that has been "good for society". Some bit of evidence that it does something besides play into people's confirmation bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Ehh.. fox news commentary is just a symptom. I've seen people quoting or citing op-ed pieces as sources before fox news was even heard of. It may be why fox news was and is so successful but it was happening long before in irc, news lists, and bbs postings.
Re: (Score:2)
You can refute stories and add information all you want, on your own platform. Journalists do not owe you a comments section and it's not "censorship" if they decide not to have a comments section.
I mean, where do you get this stuff? Do you think journalism didn't exist before there were online comments s
Re: (Score:2)
Journalism, as originally implemented in this country, and listed in this definition "writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation" no longer exists. The opposite is taught in universities, reinforced through advertising revenues and page hit models, and is all but required by the manages and execs in our media outlets.
So, journalism did exist before there were online comments sections. It just doesn't anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it does. You just have to look for it. And don't expect to see comments sections when you do find it.
If you're looking for journalism in mass media, you're right. It doesn't exist any more.
Re: (Score:2)
I would never trust a "journalist" that isn't willing to open themselves up to public feedback. That is likely a sure sign that you are dealing with someone with an agenda who doesn't want inconvenient facts to interfere with their chosen narrative. They probably don't even acknowledge the autonomy of their own staff.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that. But does it mean that it is the obligation of the journalist to provide and maintain a forum for instant feedback at his own expense? And further, to do so with protection of anonymity?
Technology has given us limitless avenues for speech. Anyone can put up a website, submit a story, be a source. You can feed back to your heart's content. A guarantee of free speech is not the same as a guar
Re: (Score:2)
And don't expect to see comments sections when you do find it.
Why's that? Does your personal definition of journalist require that he believe himself the final arbiter on truth? There's a difference between due diligence and belief. Allowing comments shows readers conviction that due diligence was done as well as a willingness to accept constructive criticism. Those who can't handle this are often those who don't like having their beliefs challenged. These people make better propagandists than journalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Yer oan a burst mooth, ya lying fooking buftie cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
The technical sides are always simple.
Now legal, contractual, support, managerial and vendor issues on the other hand could take years to sort out.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that is somehow technically impossible to implement, I'm not sure why archiving the post pre cutoff date wouldn't work. Its what happens here essentially when commenting becomes disabled due to the age of the story.
Or am i missing something?
Here come the lawsuits... (Score:2)
And with a paper that size, it'll only take one or two of them succeeding to replace it with a smoking crater.
I'll go start the popcorn--BRB.
Why is this a problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My former newspaper's former comment system was (loosely) tied to your actual newspaper subscription - it's possible that's the case here as well.
As an aside - the reason the Tacoma News Tribune is my "former" newspaper is actually slightly related to this topic. They also had a perceived issue with online commenters behaving badly. Their solution was to move to a comment system that requires Facebook authentication. At that point I'd been a print subscriber for over 20 years, but I ended my subscription. A
Re: Why is this a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't ruin society. Being anonymous in fact created this society. Before the founders put their names proudly on the Declaration of Independence they already had the backing of a decent enough amount of people that they figured they could get away with what was in fact high treason. They got that backing by writing and printing anonymously first.
The Boston Tea Party members remained anonymous until the last one died. Despite what the history books gloss over, it was a big anti corporate welfare protest In this case, about a tax break given to the British East India Company that let them undercut local merchants. Sound like today maybe? We don't tell that story accurately in schools because it might give people ideas. Most people think it was a protest about Parliament taxing tea at all, which it was most certainly not.
Those things wouldn't have been possible without anonymity. That's why Facebook et al wage war on it--to keep things 'civil'. Screw that. Society should be noisy with voices to be heard. Posting under real names that are indexed and searchable can cause all kinds of unintended consequences for the poster, even with posts that aren't controversial. It's not worth it, and so the only real name posters end up being people with nothing to lose or people who lie about their identity.
I'm really sorry for you if you can't handle racist or sexist or whatever posts. They're words. Get over it. Respond or ignore. I'm tired of 'safe places'. This is not a world for people who are that weak.
Re: (Score:2)
Stand up and stand out.
Re: (Score:2)
How would anyone think that signing up to comment on a website with a fake name is illegal? It is not like they were trying to sign up for a credit card or something that could trigger fraud.
If they used their real name, well they needed the lesson.
Betrayal (Score:4, Insightful)
Your readers posted comments with the expectation of anonymity. Why should they ever trust you again? This is less desirable than simply deleting all existing comments.
Also, I don't know the specifics of this content management software, but your expert is most certainly wrong.
Re:Betrayal (Score:5, Interesting)
This is *SO* unethical ! (Score:5, Insightful)
They are breaking the terms under which posters made their previous posts. So much for ethics. While some of us don't mind using our real names, if the site allowed nyms in the past, they should at least honour that. Who do they think they are to say, in effect "I have changed the terms of the contract. Pray I don't change it again," because now they've shown that their agreements are not really agreements.
And just how are they going to check that people's names are their real names? "Oh, this doesn't sound like a real name ...?" Or people who had good reason to post anonymously to avoid being sued in retaliation for whistle-blowing? Or being outed as gay, lesbian, trans? Or a Ben Carson supporter? Or, with the current wave of Islamophobia, a Muslim? Hope their reporters complain that their "off-the-record" sources have dried up and fix this.
Re: (Score:2)
"They are breaking the terms under which posters made their previous posts."
Did you read the terms? I didn't -- never signed up for that site. I have ready many terms of sites I have signed up for and virtually all of those include some line where they can change the terms in the future. Not saying they had that -- but you are talking as if you read the terms and know exactly what it says and are full of righteous indignation.
If you haven't read the terms, then you are full of something other than righte
Re: (Score:3)
Most EULAs have a clause stating that they can change the terms in the future; most don't say that these changes will be retro-active.
Imagine if contracts worked like this (hint, EULAs are generally treated like contracts). After years of paying, say, ten dollars a month the contract gets changed retro-actively to 100 dollars a month, and you're stuck owing thousands of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
"most don't say that these changes will be retro-active." Actually, they do. Kind of. They use terms like
"Imagine if contracts worked like this (hint, EULAs are generally treated like contracts). After years of paying, say, ten dollars a month the contract gets chan
Re:This is *SO* unethical ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a HUGE difference between "these changes will be effective immediately" and "these changes will be effective retroactively."
I don't see anything being done retroactively. They are merely changing the code for displaying user names going forward. Without a time machine they cannot retroactively change the HTML generated in the past. But effective immediately, the database field user names will be pulled from for display purposed will change from User.Alias to User.FullName. Nothing retroactive about it, from a legal stance that it (although IANAL). From a moral stance, it is more murky.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a HUGE difference between "these changes will be effective immediately" and "these changes will be effective retroactively."
I don't see anything being done retroactively. They are merely changing the code for displaying user names going forward. Without a time machine they cannot retroactively change the HTML generated in the past. But effective immediately, the database field user names will be pulled from for display purposed will change from User.Alias to User.FullName. Nothing retroactive about it, from a legal stance that it (although IANAL). From a moral stance, it is more murky.
Modern content management systems store comments, etc, in a database and dynamically change the page as the data changes. Example - change your sig, and then go look at your old posts - they will all have the new sig.
Re: (Score:2)
Clauses in legally binding agreements that grant one party the ability to unilaterally change the terms of those agreements are illegal in most places where the rule of law has any meaning. That's one of the reasons almost every contractual agreement, of which EULAs are one kind, have a clause that says if any of the terms are illegal they are void.
Re: (Score:2)
"They are breaking the terms under which posters made their previous posts."
Did you read the terms? I didn't -- never signed up for that site. I have ready many terms of sites I have signed up for and virtually all of those include some line where they can change the terms in the future. Not saying they had that -- but you are talking as if you read the terms and know exactly what it says and are full of righteous indignation.
If you haven't read the terms, then you are full of something other than righteous indignation. I leave exactly what that is up to the reader's imagination.
They themselves are admitting that the previous terms allowed anonymous posting, and that this change will be made retroactively unless you tell them by the day after Christmas to delete all your comments. Or did you not even read the summary???
If anything, they should make the default, if any, be to remove all anonymous comments unless you give them permission to show your real name. Even though even that is stupider than just enacting the new policy going forward, and leaving comments posted under the pr
Re:This is *SO* unethical ! (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, EULAs and the like tell them they can do this. Courts have upheld it. Which means taking them at their word is pretty much useless.
I don't disagree with you, but corporations who wish to make money off your personal information, they don't give a crap about your privacy or any fallout to you.
Real names policies exist because companies say "what value can I get from selling the fact that SuitWrinkler53 commented on the website?" and deciding that they can't sell that information.
They claim it's so they can police the content and keep things civil. But those comments add value to those sites, which is why they want to keep them.
But never ever assume you can or should trust a website with this information. Unless you're doing a transaction in which they need a billing address, giving random websites your actual information pretty much guarantees your information will be sold, collated, analyzed, and used for marketing purposes.
And then you realize they don't know much about the underlying technology, and are probably using something like WordPress.
You can trust a corporation to do one thing: look out for their interests. And you can safely assume they don't give a crap about your interests, which means the more you stop giving websites your real information the less they have it.
If I was faced with a website which wanted my real information, I would choose not to use it. Because I don't give a crap what most websites think, and I don't give a damn why they feel entitled to that information.
When I walk into your store, if you asked me for my real name and address, I'd tell you to fuck off. Why on earth would I give this to you when I visit your website?
The problem is people keep pretending like the internet is trustworthy, or that those agreements are binding or permanent. They just have to remind you it's technically private property, and that the license says they can change the terms if they wish.
Oh, and don't forget that the comments are probably managed by a 3rd party, who has their own license, and doesn't give a crap what you think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, EULAs and the like tell them they can do this. Courts have upheld it. Which means taking them at their word is pretty much useless.
What? If the user who wants to participate in online discussions on a private company's web site agrees to a EULA that states that the owner of the web site reserves the right to change the conditions of using the site, then that's exactly what you signed up for. The only "sadly" involved is users sadly not reading what they agree to. Most people in the gimme-dat-free-stuff mindset don't think things through anyway.
Real names policies exist because companies say "what value can I get from selling the fact that SuitWrinkler53 commented on the website?" and deciding that they can't sell that information.
Or, if you're a publisher, those policies exist in order to spare the publishers huge ongoi
Re: (Score:2)
In general I disagree with the premise of contracts which one side can change unilaterally ... but I acknowledge it exists, which was what I was saying.
Maybe you should read my fucking post and the person I was responding to?
I'm not defending it. I'm saying it exists, it's widespread, and at the end of the day short of not participating in it, or giving them false information ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, EULAs and the like tell them they can do this. Courts have upheld it. Which means taking them at their word is pretty much useless.
Citation please or I call BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics, schmethics! The lesson to learn is to never give out your real name, use prepaid cards and throw-away email, and if they snoop your IP, use a proxy.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics, schmethics! The lesson to learn is to never give out your real name, use prepaid cards and throw-away email, and if they snoop your IP, use a proxy.
Sure, but some of us would rather give them the opportunity to do something dickish and then hold their feet to the fire - otherwise, it will just continue and eventually become "best practices" and "industry standard" :-)
The excuse given doesn't reflect reality. (Score:5, Insightful)
"In a November 12 editorial outlining the new real-name policy, the newspaper said, "We have encountered consistent difficulty with posts that exceed the bounds of civil discourse — as have many sites where comments from anonymous posters are allowed."
Like the "real names" policy of facebook ever forced people into only engaging in civil discourse ... you're a newspaper - couldn't you at least do a BIT of research on how this has not worked in the past?
Someone doesn't know how the Internet works ...
A Better Way (Score:3)
They would be on much firmer ground to invite an opt in and delete all pseudonymous comments from those who don't.
So the paper decides to lead in uncivil discourse? (Score:2)
... consistent difficulty with posts that exceed the bounds of civil discourse...
The paper is doing what it accuses others of doing. The retroactive revealing of the authors of anonymous comments clears the bounds of civil discourse in street shoes.
.
imo, The Montana Standard is violating all manner of rules of Journalism if they go through with this most egregious stunt.
"impossible"? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he was told by his content management software "experts" that his experts are incompetent (they just worded it differently)
Re: (Score:2)
The other alternative is the content-management software is garbage.
Me, I'm laying my money on that one.
Don't go assuming these papers are building some specialized platform with software experts, they're buying a commercial product which does as much as the vendor made it to. Or worse, they're subscribing to a 3rd party to provide it, and in the process that 3rd party gets all your info anyway. I believe that's what disqus is for.
Sometimes, a competent person will tell you that, no, the software can't ac
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that the reason for the configuration being impossible is technical. That's rarely the case.
Create a new anonymous user (Score:2)
Then reassign all old comments to that user. How fucking hard can that be?
Re: (Score:2)
And then every old comment will be made by one person. You lose any context of conversations that took place.
Re: (Score:2)
further proof (Score:2)
if you give your information to a website, you should assume it will become public.
So instead of pseudonyms like "TheseNutz" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about this newspaper, but my local newspaper ties your online account directly to your real identification. You can't even sign up for their website unless you subscribe to the physical newspaper. In order to register for their website (and subsequently make any comments on an article) you have to enter your address and the subscriber number that appears on your bill. There's no way to provide "These J. Nutz" as your identity, unless you managed to get a credit card in that name and are using i
dumb all the way around (Score:2)
2) Dumb for the paper's management - once your online presence dries up, people will bail on your paper
3) Dumb for the readership - Why stick with a paper that has such stupid policies?
Local news site already did this, didn't stop... (Score:2)
The racists are full on racist regardless that their names are shown. Every time a crime is reported, and a minority is in the headlines, you get non-stop bashing. When they fail to report the race, the comments complain that they're trying to cover up the race, and do it anyways. This is in one of the most liberal cities in the USA, too. It's so sad how far we've fallen.
What idiots (Score:2)
Real names have never actually worked for improving discourse. What they've done is allow the trolls to attack people directly instead of being limited to doing it online.
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Make all of the old accounts inactive. Make everyone reregister (or not, as they prefer) under their real names for new accounts. If someone can show that they were previously posting under their own name, reactivate that account by hand. That will probably be a full time job for someone for a few weeks.
I would not be too surprised if they got sued under their plan. One lawsuit, even if they win, would cost a lot more than the costs of doing this right.
cue the court-cases (Score:2)
i look forward to the next slashdot article, "newspaper involved in class-action lawsuit for harm done to reputations of thousands of forum users"...
Anonymity vs. Pseudonymity (Score:2)
No comprende (Score:2)
Why on earth do people use their real names on sites like that?
Other than my bank, nobody gets my real name. All the stuff I order online goes to a packet delivery machine, usually addressed to my cat, which is also the proud owner of my ISP account and other things.
This is why (Score:2)
Horrible idea, but... (Score:2)
I agree that this is a horrible idea and so is real name policies too. The real solution is to actually fix the problems with using real names. A recent example is this fiasco:
http://ryanspahn.com/my-google... [ryanspahn.com]
https://news.ycombinator.com/t... [ycombinator.com] (the first comments are not hard to find)
Re:unpossible software hack? (Score:4, Insightful)
Software is software. If it's possible to do with "free" (open) software, it's possible to do with proprietary. The difference is who you pay to do the work.
Re:unpossible software hack? (Score:5, Insightful)
Software is software. If it's possible to do with "free" (open) software, it's possible to do with proprietary. The difference is who you pay to do the work.
Many software houses do not offer customer solutions or implement features based on customer feedback. Microsoft is an example of a large firm that does this (despite claims to the contrary). It's entirely possible the vendor writing their comment software is unwilling to comply.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you give them enough money, they'll do whatever you want. The question is only of the relative cost. Getting something custom done in open source is sometimes a matter of asking and waiting, or of paying a developer to do it for you. Getting something done in closed source might be a matter of filing a request under your support agreement, or it might mean a very expensive contract.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And it's entirely possible that you won't find someone to modify open source software.
I'm not sure if you've looked at job search sites. There are no shortage of programmers available for every language in the US. All you need is one guy who knows the language the OSS was written in and the money to pay him in order to make your desired changes. Even if it's something under draconian management like the Linux kernel, you could always fork it.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what. With proprietary software, you can pay the owner the software. And I GUARANTEE you, if you pay enough, they'll do it. Which is the same as open source software.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're talking about absurd and unaffordable amounts of money. Can you imagine how much money you'd need to pay Microsoft to make a custom version of Windows 10 for you without Metro? It's just not something they want to do. They might not even do it for any amount of money, unless you buy out the company outright, because it goes directly against their corporate vision.
With FOSS, this isn't a problem; there's always someone willing to do the work for you. And you don't have to buy out the original
Re:unpossible software hack? (Score:5, Informative)
A quick look at their source suggests that they are using something called BLOX CMS, and their nameservers are run by TownNews, which is apparently the company behind BLOX.
BLOX is advertised as "Cloud-based" with "No hardware or software to install & maintain".
This all suggests that they actually cannot make such a change, by virtue of using an SaaS solution they have no control over.
Re: (Score:2)
One may even doubt if his experts said just "impossible", instead of "impossible on given deadline, or budget or whatever".
Re: (Score:2)
...yes, but nobody tries to implement those.
We're talking about real tasks here, not parlour tricks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. If they've outsourced their website to some other company, they're at the vendor's mercy. So "impossible" is a codeword for "we were too shortsighted to have our own website built, and contracted with some shitty cloud provider, and we just do whatever they want."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why did it take you so many words to express a sentiment that could be summed up in one sentence? "I welcome anything that takes away anonymity and freedom because someone said bad words to me on the internet." It's like calling to ban kitchen knives because someone could stab you with one.
It's also hilarious, by the way, because you posted this bullshit anonymously, too. (Unless your name is SirDrinksAlot.) Nice going about proving the GIFW Theory right. You even managed to stuff racism into the debate...
Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's the anonymity that brings out the worst in people, but the separation of comment and audience. As I sit here typing this, my "audience" is a bunch of pixels on the screen. It's all too easy to remember that there's an actual human on the other side of those pixels. Most people wouldn't say horribly offensive stuff to a person's face for various reasons ranging from it's rude to they don't want to be fired to they don't want to get punched in the face. Online communications take away many of those societal pressures to stay polite which leads some people to act as though the people they are communicating with don't deserve basic human respect.
This isn't to say that using real names wouldn't keep some people civil - it might for some people - but the vast majority of online idiots will continue to be idiots whether they post as a pseudonym or their real names.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it's the anonymity that brings out the worst in people, but the separation of comment and audience.
THIS. My standard example is to observe how people behave in cars when stuck in traffic, compared to how they would behave if just walking down the street. Even that little bit of separation causes all sorts of madness and "road rage" that generally doesn't happen when people are in contact directly.
Would you randomly start screaming at someone if they were walking a little too slow in front of you? Most people wouldn't. But a lot more people will lay on their horn and hold it for five seconds or more
Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Open and honest can be a problem. For example, I used to work as tech support in a Catholic school. Not super-devout catholic, but we had a chapel and occasionally a bishop would visit for a guest sermon. I happen to think the church is composed of sex-hating prudes who'll shelter child molesters to protect their claim to moral perfection and happily watch people die of preventable disease rather than permit the use of condoms. But at the time, I couldn't have said that under my real name - because if my employer had found out, I may well have lost the job.
Speaking under your real name is not always good for one's career, or relations with one's family.
Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or for your personal safety or liberty, if you happen to be critical of the mayor or other official with some degree of power. It takes just a phone call to the local chief of police to make your life a mess.
Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget internet feuds - there are many stories of flamewars getting seriously out of hand and leading to one site SWATting the other, or submitting anonymous tip-offs to police about a claimed serious crime, or contacting an opponent's employer to spread malicious rumors in an attempt to have them fired.
Re: (Score:3)
Persecuted individuals are one class, as are people who shouldn't speak on a topic because it might include privileged or sensitive information where context of a real name would cause problems. Even on /., I find myself self-censoring posts because it wouldn't be that hard for someone to figure out who exactly I am, even without /.'s complicity.
Posting to fix fat finger mod.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to Brendan Eich.
Re:There's two sides to this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's take your example a bit further. The nasty comments are there. They already exist. What benefit is there to de-anonymizing past postings? Will it really help if you know the names of the people who wrote those vile things?
Not allowing future anonymous comments isf one thing. De-anonymizing existing comments is entirely another.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, they already spoke. What is it about the difference between past and future that you don't understand?
Re: (Score:2)
Could some mischief be achieved by planting some comments now? Use a service like mailinator to get an anonymous account, but make the name associated with the account "Donald Trump", or "Bernie Sanders", or any of the other candidates, and write a comment that is mildly offensive now, but appears much more offensive if
Re: (Score:2)
I was just wondering what would have people posting with their real names (assuming they put them in their profile) done to prevent your daughter from being a victim. Or are you just trying to reduce the pain after the fact. The simple thing is don't read the comments because there's going to be idiots on there.
There are always going to be some people in society that will make improper comments. The Internet just makes it easier for their comments to be heard. These real name policies do nothing to stop
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to your "nothing bad happened to me so obviously nothing needs to change?"
Not every bad thing means change needs to happen, but you can't just dismiss offhand any account of bad things happening and resultant calls for change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean a small minority of people that got fed up with the People's Republic of California?