Slashdot Mirror
Washingtonpost.com Wants Identities of Posters
mytrip recommends a News.com account of a panel discussion in which the Washington Post's online executive editor Jim Brady argued against anonymity on his site. He's welcome to try to carve out a space for civilized discourse, but it seems that he can't help alienating the Net-savvy whenever he opens his mouth to speak of it. "... he would like to see a technology that could identify people who violate site standards — and if need be — automatically kick them off for good. ... Brady also lamented that closing user accounts doesn't keep bad eggs off a site. They just come back and create new ones ... Brady believes that in the next five years people will be required to identify themselves in some way at many sites. 'I don't know whether we do it with a credit card number, a driver's license or passport ...'"
So I guess the Wapo won't be quoting anonymous sources anymore.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
this is the death blow for any forum, NO ONE is going to give you their CC or drivers license (atleast their real one)
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
He wants to take economic advantage of the Web, but doesn't like the way people use it??? "WAAAAAAAH!!!" "MOMMY!!!"
We know how people will use the web, and how they won't. If he can't adapt to the technology, he should stop bitching and get the HELL off the web, and go back to what he knows: newspapers. If he can't make it there these days either, then... "WAAAAAH!!!" yet another company fails to adapt, and everybody will go on to the next. He will be a bit less rich next year. Am I supposed to feel guilty? Strange, but for some reason I don't feel anything like that at all.
none of the above does anything to stop abusers.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"Brady also lamented that closing user accounts doesn't keep bad eggs off a site. They just come back and create new ones..."
Hey, that's life. I wish I could figure out a way to keep every kook and asshole from coming near me but it's impossible. Why is it any different on the internet?
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Oddly, this guy has a point. Most reasonably popular unmoderated forums quickly degrade into meaningless flames, trolls, and drivel. All it takes is a few bad apples to turn the rest of the barrel rotten, as the saying goes. Funny enough, I think Slashdot has the most effective and elegant user-moderation system I've seen. Sure, it's not 100% perfect, but more times than not, the random trolls and other crap are already modded out of my viewing range by the time I get to an article.
Most people associate bad Internet behavior with anonymity. That's true to some extent - obviously people are much less civil when dealing remotely and dispassionately with other people. Put a random Internet troll in a biker bar, and I guarantee you he'll be *much* more polite to his fellow patrons. But Slashdot has proven that you don't need to lose anonymity to create an effective flame and troll filter. Let your most trusted users do it.
I'm always surprised that more sites don't copy this system. Or maybe someone has, and I just haven't heard of it?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
But that's just it... For the same reason that paid registrations are not common, all of his proposed authentication schemes won't become common. Registration is onerous and invasive. At a minimum, it's a hassle to have to provide information. Worse, you have to pay a price, whether it's with dollars or personal details (which, as we all know, have great value to companies). Even people who are not privacy nuts dislike having to give out their name and email address just to view some online content or post a comment.
So what will happen? Sites are welcome to create more complex authentication and registration schemes... but as long as other sites don't have such schemes, online participants will naturally gravitate to the sites that have the lowest barriers to entry. So the successful sites will be those that make it very easy to participate.
Of course, we already see this online. Wikipedia and Slashdot are two examples of sites that don't try to prevent anonymous contributions... instead they rely on community self-policing to filter the useful contributions from the trolls. Ultimately, that's the solution: it keeps the barrier to participation low (so you can build up a thriving community), and the mechanism of burying crappy contributions inherently highlights better contributions.
The reason that many sites don't like this answer is that it is hard to generate a useful community (for one thing, you can't treat your users as merely cattle to squeeze money out of--you have to actually build value to keep them visiting your site).
I'm not sure how anyone can have any issue with what he's discussing. Accountability on the Internet is sorely lacking, and it shows. Users have to sift through so much garbage to find anything resembling discussion because we're so concerned about making things 'democratic.' The real problem is there are usually only a few points to be made, and the rest is mostly noise punctuated by flawed analogies, poor logical reasoning, and tired memes. But, somehow, users just HAVE to get their two cents in -- regardless of whether it is actually a point for discussion or for the sake of talking. Sadly, even lack of knowledge of what one is talking about is not considered grounds for shunning because there are so many users.
Moderation systems merely measure how far opinions deviate from the norm. They do filter out some noise. However the collateral damage from them tends to be high, and legitimate points get lost because there's no way to tell if moderators are intellectual weaklings who can't stand to evaluate their own beliefs.
The world needs a site that is ruthlessly moderated by people committed to facilitating discussion. Too many Slashdot threads are little more than idiotic "rah-rah root for the home team" banter in the flavor of corporations. So much for nerds being above fashion, eh?
I look forward to the Web 2.0's notion of "user-generated content is valuable" being exposed for the sham that it is. A very small percentage of user content is valuable. Random users do NOT need to comment on every little page on a site. Usually, they have nothing worthwhile to add and they often add things that are just plain rude.
And it eliminates everyone who does not have a cellphone.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
What my concern is with sites which demand so many registration details... what happens with that info, and where is it stored?
If this guy wants paid registration, he should just say so and have that, where people cough up $10 a year or something for access to the site's contents.
Instead, perhaps he should do what a lot of websites do -- require either a "non-free" E-mail address, or manual approving for a user account if its a Yahoo/Hotmail/Gmail account. This is not a 100% measure, as there are lots of people who pay for their Yahoo or Hotmail accounts, but its a measure good enough to do what this guy wants. Should a non-free provider start having abuse problems, add that domain on the "manual approve" list, and call it done.
Sadly, sites that adopt this will still be cesspools of hateful comments. Because, ultimately, they don't have the courage to edit fairly and won't adopt ./-style moderation.
So... newspaper cite will still be cesspool of hate. Fair-minded users who value privacy will still ditch. Phhht.
The real lesson is that old-media sites still haven't learned what makes internet comment boards successful, and they revert to old-school control tactics that won't help and will harm.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
My experience goes, the reason people don't some things at the dinner table is fear they well be attacked and bashed over the head with the (real-life-equivalent) of a steel pipe. In real life, people can't readily speak their mind at times. Now, perhaps this can be viewed as a good because it keeps descenting views quiet. Me? I'd rather hear the KKK and neo-Nazi members speak. Sure, there's the risk that they'll be able to recruit more members. But, history has shown that desegregation and other *real-world* things are what have life-changing effects on people's opinions on things.
Now, maybe the internet is really so revolutionarily different that there is no history to extrapolate from. But, if that's the case, it still seems the case that the good would intrinsically outweight the bad. Will people's feelings be hurt? Will there be trolls and flamers who are more interested in creating dischord than having actual discussions? Sure. That's the reason for things like moderation, editors, etc. The only thing attaching real-world identification to a username will do is either (a) keep the threat of steel pipes to the head from other users running so high that we're back to the self-censorship that leads nowhere (and open up places the Washington Post to wrongful death suits) or (b) keep the threat of editors and their reign of power so high that some people will stop posting entirely.
In short, being an online editor against a seemingly endless flow of trolls, spam, etc seems impossible. But, instead of trying to revert back to the comfortable and easy, perhaps more consideration should be done on tackling the problem by engaging it the hard way? Ie, hire more editors and stop treating online posting as some quirky, cheap add-on that you can control with a few lowly staff or some magical technological fix.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
It would be like a librarian asking for censorship.
No, it would be like the librarian asking for quiet in the reading room. It's not the dissemination of ideas or the idea of anonymous communication that bothers him. It's the disruption of discourse by people who refuse to adhere to simple rules.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
You're engaging in Nerd Logic -- the fact that a sufficiently motivated abuser could get around any of those things isn't the same as "none of the above does anything to stop abusers".
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
"Remember he's talking about the policies of the Washington Post on the Washington Post web site, not for the internet as a whole."
...
Actually, in checking TFA, the man said:
"I think part of the problem is that people aren't held accountable on the Web," Brady said. "People say things online they would never say when disagreeing with someone at the dinner table. I think heated debate is fine, but when there are (flame wars), many people won't take part for fear they will be attacked and bashed over the head with the (Internet-equivalent) of a steel pipe."
That sort of looks like the "internet as a whole" to my glazed AC eyes.
Yes, I was tricked into reading TFA.
Onwards
He talks about a recent case that brought the problem to light, and again I quote:
"Brady knows how intensely many Internet users disagree with him. He made headlines in January 2006 after shutting down the comments area of a blog where outraged readers gathered to rebuke the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell.
Following the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, Howell erred when she said that the lobbyist gave campaign donations to Democrats as well as Republicans. Abramoff gave only to Republicans. The paper's Web site saw more than 1,000 comments, many from people who accused the Post of conspiring with the Republicans.
Things got worse when Howell posted a clarification. When Brady saw that many of those comments violated the paper's policy against the use of profanity or personal attacks, he blocked users' ability to post. The decision was widely criticized. In defense of his decision, Brady wrote that many of the posts weren't comments at all, but the kind of thing "you might find carved on the door of a public toilet stall."
So cry me a fucking river. For a lack of fact-checking before PRINTING their politically-inflamatory and BULLSHIT story, or perhaps for deliberate "muddying the waters" about Abramoff's activities (shit, what do I care, I'm not even a zeppo), his paper got a hefty fucking slap in the face for screwing up, and now he's whining that they got caught out.
Tough shit. You screw up, you pay the price. Same goes for all of us, no? And what's more, this is the VERY SAME standard he wishes to hold AC's to, that they be "held accountable". And he doesn't want to be, given as the WP shut down the comments section on that particular story he's so happy to chat about.
Shove it somewhere dark, dude. You lost your own argument all on your lonesome. Hypocrisy, anyone?
Yes, we ACs are a complete fucking pain in the ass, are we not?
They do, you know, already accept credit card numbers for newspaper subscriptions. This would just force everyone to give their credit card number in order to comment on articles.
Honestly, I'm all for that. I'm sick and tired of the countless trolls on so many unmoderated (or essentially unmoderated) newspaper forums.
It's good to be worried about identity theft, but trusting one of the nation's major newspapers with your credit card number isn't asking a lot, unless you consider buying anything online from anyone (including amazon) as too risky.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech even when you don't care for what you are hearing.
If you think GNAA, goatse, etc. are the worst of slashdot, you haven't brought a brain to the table. if it there were no consequences id require that you have to give you name & address to post just so I could go round and shut those stupid little twats up, but what hes talking about would stop 90% of posts and its just not worth it. The point is that there *are* consequences to full identification. Lines being drawn now on what constitutes "hate" speech are frightening.
To name a silly but sad example, I was participating in a discussion on a games board regarding `Disgaea: Afternoon of Darkness' and this particular discussion related to the pronunciation of `Disgaea'. I tried to post something which contained the phonetic spelling `Dis-gay-uh', and got a warning message that my text contained something probably offensive and probably violating the TOS and would probably get me banned and would definitely be forwarded to someone for review. (The same idiotic software bans the word `wakarimashita' - Japanese for `understand', presumably for the bolded section). I chose the only reasonable alternative and self-censored my would-be comment.
Fuck censorship. I read slashdot at -1. If that means I have to occasionally skip past the really offensive trolls, whatever. I've been reading netnews, etc. for over two decades. The ratio of noise is roughly constant (once advertising SPAM is removed), so it's not like it's a growing problem. I don't consider it a "problem" at all.
Free speech is still free speech even^H^H^H^Hespecially when you don't agree with it. Asshats are entitled to their opinion even when they do not choose to sign their name. The unique feature of the internet is that with anonymity, we can rise beyond distinctions of race, gender, physical appearance, etc. That's much too important to throw away.
On the Internet noone knows you're a dog. Woof Woof. http://www.xemacs.org/People/steve.baur/
"What I'd like to see is a more "public" internet. Register your name, address, drivers license, arc of your piss, etc. at some place like Verisign"
Are you nuts? What happens when you decide to inform someone on the internet of your opinion regarding GWB and his ridiculous "Warr on Terrah" and that person just happens to have links to GWB and decides to give his "old college buddy' at Versign a call and have them yank your "internet priveleges"
From then on you become persona non-gratis and you can't even get on the internet and raise a good old fashioned grassroots stink campaign.
Good lord, what you are suggesting is a fascist dictators wet dream
Good grief, it is true. You are either an utter moron or a clueless teenager.
The original "spirit of the internet" (post arpanet) was to promote the free and unrestricted exchange of information.
Just because a bunch of money craving fascists have come along in the past few years and decided that the internet is something that they need to control and monetize doesn't make this sort of crap right.
If you want guaranteed safety then stick to TV.
If you want to explore the world (the good and the bad of it) without viewing it through the filtered portal that is provided by big media then we have the internet.
The day the internet gets controlled for the purpose of sanitizing it is the day the undernet is born (and I'm not referring to the irc network by that name)
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Well, I'm posting under my real name and with my original Slashdot ID, which is low enough. And I've been running online discussions since the 1980s, so I have some experience with this.
I have to agree: Cutting yourself off from unattributed expertise is crazy.
But there is a difference between requiring disclosure of real identity, and publishing that disclosure.
In a forum context, there is a middle ground that I've labeled "pseudonymity." Google will find you the citations.
This is actually closer to the model used by the Washington Post in its journalism in cases where the value of the information merits "anonymous sources" because that information otherwise would not be obtainable.
There really are no anonymous sources. There are unnamed sources, and occasionally one who emerges (like Deep Throat) as a full-fledged pseudonym.
The right thing to do is simple: Figure out your goals, and then choose the model that best supports those goals.
The problem most newspapers have is that they have not articulated any goals for adding public comments, blogs or forums, other than boosting pageviews for commercial reasons.
If that's the only goal, then by all means, allow truly anonymous random comments. That will work. Just don't complain about the quality.
If the goal is something different -- to build a cohesive and functioning community, to enhance civic engagement, to advance understanding and promote participative democracy -- then it's likely that unfiltered anonymous commenting will be the worst choice. But many people may have legitimate needs to cloak their identity, and throwing them overboard in order to guard against the occasional idiot and vandal is counterproductive.