Slashdot Mirror
Huffington: Trolls Uglier Than Ever, So We're Cutting Off Anonymous Commenting
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."
Comment on stories under their *facebook accounts.... Nice try, they are simply using this as an excuse to expand their advertising market.
I think it's fine if they want to force people to register and maybe jump through a few hoops so someone can't just create a new account and be flaming away ten seconds later, but i'm not a fan of the "real name" thing. I objected when Google tried to push the idea and i still don't like it now. Consistent identities and some kind of moderation system are enough to tame the worst abuses without trying to drag real names into it.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
What if wide-spread mass adoption of anonymity actually leads to undermining Society's value of free speech? If no one's willing to stand up and be recognized for what they say, then why would we require freedom of speech for recognized individuals? Seems inefficient if everyone wants the privilege but none of the responsibility.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
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
Pseudonymity in the age of data aggregation is crucial. Any "real name" policy is very boneheaded, and can lead to endangering the readers.
You are nuts if you post anything, anywhere under real name. Internet has no "right to forget".
Identify yourself...
and get shot... http://mashable.com/2011/11/10/mexico-blogger/
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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)
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.
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.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
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.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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.
The trolls fuel the fire and keep people going back. This increases pageviews and ad revenue.
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).
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
There's a reason for anonymous voting, you know.
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.
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!)
Who is John Cabal?
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.
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.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
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.