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."
Yes, i am aware of the irony... but nevertheless I have always been in favor of this.
Yes, i am aware of the irony... yet nevertheless i have always been a fan of this.
Comment on stories under their *facebook accounts.... Nice try, they are simply using this as an excuse to expand their advertising market.
Shitcocks!
Does this mean no more trolling homeopathic crap?
[middle finger]
All aboard the deathcamp trains. Please let us know your real name.
This would, of course, be news to Publius (Patrick Henry).
If you are afraid to be known for your comments and insist on posting anonymously, then your credibility isn't worth shit and your comments are, for the most part, not worth consideration.
There are occasionally exceptions where people *need* to remain anonymous for fear of lawsuits or termination from their jobs, but that's about the only exception I can think of unless you're worried about getting arrested by the NSA/DEA/CSIS/government-agency-of-your-choice.
Identify yourself or be laughed at and ridiculed.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
J/K She's probably right.
Assuming all you need is an email address...
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
This is the same Huffington Post that hypocritcally moderates every thread to shape the discussion in favor of their own personal political agenda?
Kind of like that bigot Cory Doctorow?
All of which by the way is MODERATED, take a look at this
http://hpmonitor.blogspot.com/
HP regularly reprints and links to neo nazi sites as long as it refers to Jews. HP is pretty well know to one of the most openly antisemitic major news websites out there right now.
The real trolls at huffpost have huge number of 'fans', they are 'leaders' or whatever they call them. They express the correct party line 'opinions', they are ideologically in line with the site owners.... I guess it's not that different from /., except ACs here are also quite aligned with the groupthink.
It's a cesspool of a full range of collectivists of all colors and types. And I guess now it's also going to be a way for the NSA to list the undesirables.
So... did they get one of those 'home land security' letters then?
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Real hipsters are against freedom of expression.
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.
I will continue not to visit huffingtonpost.com
Simple enough. Fakenamegenerator.com
Hope that helps
freedom of expression is a right.... attempting to grant it to some while restricting it from others is an act of fascist cowardice.
how are you going to prove someone is using their real name? punt it to facebook? maybe one of my 1000 facebook accounts could chime in about why that won't work. force them to provide a credit card? a phone number? fax a drivers license? all of those credentials can be exploited, stolen, or forged.... and at the end of the day, you still don't know who is actually behind the keyboard using the account.
users could even go so far as to start a market for anonymous users to use each others' accounts... every has plausible deniability and trust in huffpuff identities becomes worse than it originally was.
huffpuff just signed their own sentence of irrelevance.
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".
uhhh.... homeopathic?
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, The Toronto Star, or CNN.com, and others like them. /. naturally also has the benefit of community-driven moderation to limit trolling, flamebait, and spam).
Yaz
>implying anyone reads the progressive trash at huff post.
I will quit the internet if I'm unable to get an hp account with a fake name.
I'm sure the Huffington Post will also be quick to start naming all their sources in any news reports as well, since only those that are willing to be named apparently deserve any freedom of expression.
Come from people posting under their real names on Facebook and in newspaper comment forums.
"Freedom of expression" is a curious phrase for her to pick. Doesn't really have anything to do with a private entity running a comment forum. But if she's trying to invoke the 1st Amendment somehow, anonymous free expression was something at least some of our founders deemed important.
Well, I suppose Democrats have proven as fickle on civil liberties as Republicans these days, so maybe this is another subtle effort to manage expectations of privacy from the left. Or I'm just reading too much into something as usual.
Homeopathy: a system of alternative medicine originated in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of similia similibus curentur ("like cures like"), according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people.
Homophobia: a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).
LOL
anonymity is a requirement for untempered speech.
The whole internet is meant to become strongly anonymous.
Not the other way around.
What Huffington really means is that they don't like comments that speak of the truth or are anti-liberal. If you create an account, they will ban you for posting legitimate information that goes against their agenda so you're forced to post with an anonymous account. But of course, if you post via proxy it's now illegal or going to be illegal right? I don't get these politically bias media agencies. They clearly know what's going on but they change the stories to better reflect the political party that they represent. Why? It does nothing good, only kills the country more and more by brainwashing stupid and/or lazy people.
I guess Huffington will be getting it their way as registering accounts via proxy is soon to be illegal if it isn't already.
Well she's not exactly getting any more beautiful herself either..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There can be no "freedom of speech" on a message board owned by some random entity that can take down your comment for any reason it wants to.
He might actually mean homeopathic, those idiots do a tremendous amount of trolling as well.
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!
Yeah, naturally people prefer to spout whatever racist misanthropic bullshit suits their fancy without being called out for it.
You cannot have truly free speech unless you have anonymous speech
What is the condition where a person thinks a word has a different meaning because it sounds like something totally unrelated?
There's no right to someone's forum enumerated in the constitution.
So feel free to express yourself elsewhere.
I know I'm going to go down in flames for this, but I wish they would do this on slashdot. The asshole factor here is higher than ever now. 99% of AC posts are just complete bollocks. If you *really* feel the need to keep your identity secret then just go an get a new profile. If you can't be bothered to do that then perhaps your comments are worth sharing in the first place.
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.
..yours, Anon.
What is the condition where a person thinks a word has a different meaning because it sounds like something totally unrelated?
Homonymic?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I agree "msobkow "
We all should make pseudonyms with throw away email accounts because that is SO much more trustworthy!
On another note, I have seen folks go back over a registered user's posting history and throw up in his face past - distant past - posts regarding a topic.
I am so glad I don't have a registered account, For one, I have softened up a bit on some topics (religion. Still don't believe but I don't think believers are complete morons anymore) and changed my mind on others (Obama has turned into an asshole), and kept the same on yet others (Republicans are a bunch of clueless old people).
If I had an account, one could go back and accuse me of being a hypocrite. People do change their opinions.
If I had an account, I can just see in the future someone throwing one of those opinions above in my face - right or wrong.
So why do they have to give the real names of people who aren't reporting?
Because you're a shithead?
Vizzinism?
Sounds like a fake name to me.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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?
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.
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.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Really I can see a need to register to keep out spammers as they tend to post anywhere its easy.
Funny, top comments here can use their stand by your speech arguments to justify the surveillance state.
> The days of anonymous commenting on The Huffington Post are numbered
Just blacklist their browser. After installing a couple of them and finding they can no longer post, as considering few have the skills and resources to set up a virtual env't, the trolling rate should go down significantly.
www.lifehacker.com/5458513/panopticlick-shows-how-easy-your-browser-is-to-track
Register your name as Seymour Butz.
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
How are the going to enforce real names? Real names are irrelevent, anyway. The way people behave in an on-line community has more to do with the way the community is structured and maintained than whether people use their real names. I'm involved in a few communities. Some are friendly and welcoming. Others, not so much. None enforce real names.
soylentnews.org
my real name is Anonymity
'Freedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what theyâ(TM)re saying and not hiding behind anonymity,' -- Sometimes, People hide Who They are for safety.
Those homeosexuals can quit exchanging their extremely diluted bodily fluids and get back in the closet
Hey, Slashdot devs, why don't you make your comment system in to a format that can be used on other websites?
As terrible as it is, the meta-moderation part of it is what matters as it is mostly fairly good. (it could do with a huge addition to the ratings system though, it is too narrow, even for this site)
All other common comment systems are absolutely atrocious by any reasonable standards, especially when it comes to moderation.
This is the only one of any use, is not particularly different to those doing moderation and is pretty damn seamless.
Threading and permalinks is handled very well.
The one thing that it does lack and should seriously be considered is pagination. Nobody wants to load 1000 comments, even in Chrome.
Say, 100-200 comments, plus more if it takes more comments to fit in every child comment. (pagination of child comments in threads is terrible, I have seen sites do that crap, not worth it at all, permalinks solved that forever ago)
And, of course, an option to increase or decrease that.
It isn't just a case for resources or tidiness, it also allows people to link to a page as opposed to a thread.
Some pages could be filled with completely inane shit, some could be filled with the best content of any of the other pages. Some of the best stuff might not happen until page 3.
As much as some people hated the transition from the old system to the new system, the horrible bugs and all the sub-domain quirks seem to have been fixed.
I have certainly not come across any bugs besides the slider acting weird if you drag it too quickly or other weird oddities with it.
But then, things like that tend to be weird anyway because of JS and the DOM in general.
I remember there used to be some right weird bugs only on some sub-domains where you couldn't select in this textarea beyond the word "textarea" in this very sentence, more-or-less by a few characters. It was such a weird bug and I never found out what caused it before it eventually got fixed.
There are some right terrible comment systems out there presently.
Sure, they look nice and tidy, sure, they integrate with pages well, still doesn't make them functionally nice in the slightest.
"Trolls don't need to be eliminated. You just need to get a better comment system." - slogan.
Fund it.
It is not possible to have a truly frank discussion with a real ID requirement, because everyone knows that some people who will read the discussion are not reasonable, rational, and civil. If someone wants to present the argument that all men have an innate propensity to commit rape, I want that person to be able to make his or her case without fear of retribution. I don't agree, being a man who has no interest in rape, but I want that person to be completely uninhibited in presenting the case.
I'm not saying HuffPo has to be the place for unfettered discussion, but an online forum that wants to take on challenging issues has to find a way to handle anonymity and pseudonymity. And, of course, we have an excellent example of a functioning *onymity-supporting discussion forum right here. It's hard, it takes a lot of time to get it started and constant nurturing from within and without to keep it healthy, but if you want a forum that takes on the tough subjects, that is the price.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Locke and Demosthenes are disappointed. Anonymity allows others to claim your ideas as their own. Often, this is the first step to effecting your ideas.
"Looks like Hugh G. Rection is at it again"
When Steve Jobs is dead
1984 is back
We are using the Mac
Or its copycat
to browse the Internet
Anonymous you said!
I may be a Coward
But risk my family I care?
If the shoe fits. By shoe I mean evidence. The point being that evidence supporting an argument to the point it cannot be reasonably countered, is generally met with suggestions that someone with a differing opinion is "racist" in Huffington post users eyes.
For example:
A general consensus of Huffington post users would say, "Anyone who doesn't think Zimmerman was guilty is racist." Seriously, that isn't something made up.
'Freedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what they’re saying and not hiding behind anonymity'
Nice one. Way to conflate doing something perfectly reasonable (that is, disallowing anonymous comments on your privately owned to reduce trolls and spam) with the immensely wrong-headed idea that people should not in general be allowed to express themselves anonymously.
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?!?
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
LOL
What does "LOL" mean?
At first I thought it sounded like a good idea. But let's think this through. How would they enforce it? The trolls will just use fake names. It would take an army of people just to verify the IDs. And even if they automated it, who would be willing to go to all that trouble to make a comment? Likely not many. Let's take it a step further and require ID to get online. Say goodbye to liberty and political dissent. It's the NSA's wet dream!
We don't need nanny HP for this.
What a monumentously wrong move.
There is an epidemic called 'control'.
HP, HP -- aiee, aiee!
Ignorance.
I can see the fnords!
You insensitive clod!
They just figured out that they have a problem?
I gave up reading the comments on Huff Post a long time ago. They are just trash.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Sorry, I may not want to face the wrath of an ignorant employer or neighbor because they found me posting online about being an atheist or libertarian or playing videogames.
no really , oh ya that liberal propoganda website in my home country of canada run by that women whose like the spokesperson for a lot a wing nuts
Freedom of speech doesn't mean Huffington has to bend to the will of random slashdotters, they are under no social/moral/legal obligation to print everything and anything that people post, they can do whatever the fuck they like with THEIR web site, nobody has been stripped of their "rights" here. Same principles apply to Slashdot's "all in" commenting policy, Slashdot's self regulating commenting system exists because Slashdot have the same basic right to set the commenting policy on their own site that Huffington does on theirs.
Last time I looked I was well over 5K Slashdot posts over a period of a decade and I've been a sporadic subscriber, of course I'd like to see Slashdot style commenting policies everywhere, also comment threading, and more than 250chars please. If I can't have that or have to jump too many hoops then I'll simply find another way to waste my time.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
agree...HuffPo is probably doing this to bottleneck users into giving up personal data...but where in TFA do you see that they will use Facebook exclusively?
They might use Disquss (which I hate) or there are a few others out there...
FTA:
This is what I hate...'trolls' could be post-bots posting anonymously just as much as the more traditional 40 yr old IT guy in his mom's basement troll...
It's wrong to lump all misuse of anonymous into one basket and say they're 'hiding'...slashdot mildly shames anon commentors by calling the 'cowards' but that's it...we anons can still comment
Thank you Dave Raggett
Make no mistake fans and fannies, Huffys cosmopolitan pimps want yo name. They have money and power and the will to destroy you ... should your thought-crimes invade their scabrous vipers nest. No sense of history ... mind ... but arrogance & current power fit so well together.
I'm too lazy to Log in, so commenting as AC is just a plus; the only thing that I don't want to wast is time... uhh? ok... I'm here on /. so maybe I can spare some time but not to log in. Can just put my IP address and my nickname?
Regards A.C.
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.
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.
No, it's bliss.
Anonymous political free speech is Constitutionally protected but it has been under attack for years. Starting with the use of the dubiously named "Free Speech Zones" in the 1988 DNC Convention, the expansion of that draconian practice through the Bush years, the implementation of the Patriot Act and the DHS basically claiming they had a right to know who was saying what simply because their self-drafted rules said so, free speech is facing serious threats today as an ever expanding police state seeks to silence dissent and criticism. Just today it was revealed, as reported here, that the administration sought to keep secret a ruling from the FISC stating that the NSA had acted unconstitutionally. The erosion and chilling of free speech can come in many forms. This move by HP is just another form of chilling political free speech. Much like an above poster, years ago I used to comment on HuffPo but soon found out that free speech wasn't free if you were critical of what Arianna wanted or of her friends. However, it is a public venue but a privately run site, so they do have the right to set their terms of service. That being said, claiming to be for free speech while censoring - and make no mistake, they actively censor at HP - is hypocritical and disingenuous. The demand of "real names" - like they're really going to be able to enforce that - just shows me that when it comes to free speech, they are all hat and no cowboy. One site I've noticed that does protect anonymous free speech is JonathanTurley.org. They have to suffer a few trolls for it, but the audience there is very well educated and informed as well as pretty unmerciful in dealing to trolls and propagandists usually hammering them down with facts and sound argument. They do, however, state that it is that's blog's policy that anonymous political free speech is protected within the well established legal exceptions such as threats, libel, etc. The consequence of this is a much better general level of discussion than is found at HP or most other sites with public political discourse. It may wander at times, it may get hairy at times, but free speech has an unwritten corollary. Free speech guarantees that at some point you will be offended. You have no right not to be offended. Even if you're Arianna "I'm A Bigshot Better Than You" Huffington. It may be a bit of the Wild West on a blog like Turley's but evidence, logic and reason usually win the day.
But then again, you lot here at /. should know that from experience. You were started by a cowboy after all.
" 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
âoeFreedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what theyâ(TM)re saying and not hiding behind anonymity,â she said.
No, it belongs to everyone. Even anonymous.
Federalist Papers, bitch.
--
BMO
LOL
What does "LOL" mean?
Nothing. It's his name. He writes it at the bottom to sign his posts.
Maybe if HuffPo posted more articles that weren't garbage filler, they would attract smarter people to the site instead of the nutjobs the site seems to attract in droves. I read HuffPo at work on my breaks and for every decent article there is its separated by 3 or 4 padded articles that take one or two sentences and just stretch them out into 20 paragraphs.
Does anyone actually read Huffpo anymore? I thought it was just where everyone went to troll semi-leftist imbeciles when they weren't hopping over to various other sites to troll semi-rightist imbeciles. I predict a sudden precipitous decline in their pageviews and comments, and them losing a lot of ad revenue.
ACs are the toast of Slashdot, fighting for Internet privacy.
By the next thread we'll be scum again. Actually, like a serial prisoner, I feel more comfortable in that environment.
Fuck that bitch!!!
Boycott HuPo and encourage others to do so. Alert their advertisers that their products will be boycotted if they continue to sponsor HuPo.
That is a lie perpetrated by the man to keep a brother down. Everyone knows it was Homey.
Homey the Clown
uhhh.... homeopathic?
Yeah. Very diluted, squittery crap. Obviously.
gah. it's stupid that she had to make this about principles where it is indefensible. better thing would have been to just make the pragmatic argument - "hey, shit's going haywire so we're going to turn it down a notch". not everything has to be ideological... just keeping your house in order is enough.
Simplified definition Homeopathy: a system of alternative medicine designed to sell water to fools as medicine.
'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".
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Well, as a company its their right, but if they believe this way they truly don't comprehend the concept of free speech.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I mean if someone is commenting as Mark Twain, how would you know that their real name is Samuel Clements? In any case, it is one more reason not to bother with Huffington Post.
Santorum is actually much more viscous than female excretion mixed with male semen.
Mod me informative, fags!
http://xkcd.com/202/
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
In most venues if one attempted to speak in the public square wearing a mask and hood, one would be laughed out of town, or if the content were defamatory, arrested. It's long past time all respectable Internet forums required a real name and checked email address. There are plenty of other venues for trolls, provaceteurs, and rabble-rousers.
The law provides recourse for defamation and sites are accessories if they don't provide enough information for warranted civil or criminal action.
Free speech does not extend to falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and the Constitution is not a suicide pact. By law, "freedom of the press" belongs only to those who own presses.
Speak for yourself.
One mouse click, per thread, per tab. I can PgDn all day, even if I'm on a plane with no internet connectivity. Would scale to a thousand comments easily if the site was just static HTML; even in AJAX mode, after a couple of mouse swipes on the silly little slider, and a second click on the "no, really, everything" button, I can still render a 500+ comment thread on Slashdot in a few seconds.
Where that idea fails to scale is the number of hits on the /. database - if every press of the F5 key resulted in the retrieval of 1000+ comments. I can see issues server-side, but not client-side. Pagination is unnecessary.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I quit reading HufPo when they turned there site into TMZ for News.
Hey, on an unrelated note, does /. support HTTPS? Why am I sending my comments in the clear?
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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I've been posting under my real name since 1989, before the world wide web even existed. I don't see what the big deal is.
If you really hate fags then you better not use the word Santorum, which is the name of one of the greatest defender of righteousness of our times, to represent such a vile concoction.
Makes it easier for the government to profile for terrorists if it doesn't have to match all those IP's with names.
dissenting opinions are far less likely to be made
When we vote in local, state and National elections, we do so in .... err ... ah ... anonymity!
"Shot through the heart, ... and your to blame, ... you give love, ... a BAD NAME.
Que the band to take us out of here Ricco!
It is in the interests of newspaper organizations to manage comments in a way that reflects as badly as possible on the internet as a source of opinion. They hope to persuade the government to make the internet a corporate advertising outlet like newspapers.
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.
Which at least in my case pretty much is "Hi, I'm a moderator that doesn't get sarcasm or humor." (Hence my sig.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Fox News got rid of commenting about a year ago from what I remember. I used to read the comments for fun, because they were the stupidest, most vile, hateful things I've ever found on the Internet.
I don't respond to AC's.
'Freedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what they’re saying and not hiding behind anonymity,'
Unless you're protected by, say, journalistic privalege.
...not to mention a million other cases where people choose to comment in the public square whilst remaining anonymous.
What is the condition where a person thinks a word has a different meaning because it sounds like something totally unrelated?
Malapropism?
Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
Yeah, the selection gets really tricky, but there really is a -2 level, but we gotta watch out for people meta-trolling and getting themselves nuke powers.
But I'll bring up one of my favorite ones:
Y'all see the "nonsense spam" goat.cx bots?
Someone is being some kind of idiot, because *any one of you* can write a better spam post than "elephant hax00r because the suk in the fruit of coconut fps" (goat.cx). And someone else mentioned the Tub or the toilet stories.
Maybe make it a White list system, start conservatively with the 10 worst junk posts qualifying for -2, *and prevent other things from going that low*.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
> Yeah, naturally people prefer to spout whatever racist misanthropic bullshit suits their fancy without being called out for it.
This is true. However, social stigmatizing is a long-evolved meme control mechanism to bring people into line...with the dominant way of thinking. It skips actual debate...or just letting stupid statements stand on their own, both of which are actual, real, content-based responses.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I doubt its about cleaning up the comments section.
AOL, the parent company of HuffPo, is currently refocusing its business on driving ad sales.
It's no secret that HuffPo is doing quite badly at selling ads.
This part is the speculation. HuffPo has an audience, but can't sell ads. What is it that will bring advertisers to them? Targeted ads. But you can only target your ads if you know who is reading your page. How do you then convince your audience to register instead of browsing anonymously? By removing anonymous posting.
Plausible?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
One exception I can think of is if the poster is a member of an organisation who would like to contribute something to the discussion, but cannot reveal his identity for fear of retribution from that organisation. It is quite common for corporations to issue standing instructions for the employees not to cummunicate except therough the publicity department. Ditto if you work for any government body.
It need not even be a whistleblower kind of situation. For example, if I am an airline pilot, I might want to correct some factual errors about innocuous information like pre-flight procedures in a forum. But most airlines have a strict ban on any communication made as an identified pilot, for fear that what you say may damage their brand.
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.
I faced a similar issue on BoingBoing. I was arguing a contrarian position, and I think I was being perfectly polite and reasonable.
I was permanently banned by a moderator, for reasons which seemed to me contrived.
It was a helpful reminder that people of ALL political stripes can argue I'm bad faith.
Sonia does this work... When on member of a very large group shows a bad trait, you vaguely ascribe that trait to the whole group (Republicans)?
Heterolexical.
“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” - Oscar Wilde
I'm generally in favor of giving users the right to anonymity - it doesn't represent the real world, people say, but hell, isn't that one of the benefits of the internet? But that said, I'm not sure it's worked out perfectly.
I've spent a lot of time on Usenet recently, for several reasons. And holy crap, Usenet is a festering cesspool of vile, antagonistic, hostile, offensive ad-hominem attacks. Yes, anonymity allows you to discuss sensitive subjects while remaining protected. It also subjects you to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (GIFT) (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory).
Maybe this says more about current Usenet denizens than it does about the benefits of anonymous discussion, but it seems Usenet has become a platform for aggressively launching personal attacks against other readers. Just one of the nails in Usenet's coffin, I think. So much for civil discourse!
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
..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.
Mundus Vult Decipi
I predict a massive influx of John Does names in Huffington's future. Even Google had to back off on the real name shit. I also predict that the depth of conversation will become much shallower. Many people have viewpoints that they would rather not share with family, employers, and potential employers.
If you happen to be John Smith (like a former British Prime Minister) you're pretty anonymous. If, on the other hand, your name is Sir Flinders Petrie...
Just have a few people willing to pass along pretty much anything (subject to their own sensibilities) under their own name. They may of course impose some loose editorial controls, but who is going to stop them from posting whatever they want under their own name.
Sure, Brave Bob Barrington of Boston might seem to lurch from gun-grabbing Californian commie to teabagging target shooting Texan and back in a single day, but how will HuffPo prevent people from passing on anonymous posts of other people?
I know of a real incident where a news-related forum also forced people to use their real names, which caused a nasty incident 'in real life'.
Now, they didn't have truly anonymous posting to begin with, but the real name and email was hidden, and the self-selected username was shown as poster. They then decided to start displaying the real names instead of the username, not only for new posts but also for the archive posts. This meant that controversial posts now had a real name attached and that meant that the full address was easily available after a quick online search, and unfortunately that meant that people had extremely unpleasant visits from angry readers that apparently lacked words to argue things and decided to use baseball bats instead. Needless to say, It did not end well. This instantly caused a massive drop in postings and today the forum barely exists. Nobody dares post anything anymore. They have not changed their policy, probably because that would be admitting it was a mistake.
The successor was a different forum where they displayed only the first name and the initials of any middle names and the last name. This made it very hard to figure out a real name from a post and people were able to debate without fearing a baseball bat wielding lunatic knocking on the door.
PS: The debate that caused the baseball bat incident revolved around religion, more specifically Islam, and the infamous Mohammed Cartoons. Apparently some Muslims are psychotic or otherwise mentally disturbed when it comes to any criticism of their religion and its primary characters, which means that full disclosure of the identities of participants of debates can be a very bad and dangerous thing. I'm sure there's plenty of other similar topics where severe polarization exists and each side is ready to use any and all means to win a debate, including violence and worse.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Started at the Ms Magazine blog, ended, IIRC, at Huffpo. Notable for the heavy handed moderation protecting and defending Ms. Heidi's recounting of her fears and anxieties. (And ignorance.)
Accidentally clicked a few links through Twitter but that's about it. Seemed like an extremely neo-liberal website based on "star" commenters.
You don't need an account to post articles or to comment. I use Subbmitt.com instead of Digg or Reddit or most of the other news sites that want you to use your Facebook or Twitter account. Screw that.
They could just get their moderators from Wikipedia. No difference between that and any other of their authoritarian "you will walk the party line" viewpoints.
I'll just create fake accounts. Post with fake email addresses, linked to fake facebook accounts if they force you to login (only) using facebook.
- Dr. Jimmy Russel
Okay, but not everyone necessarily will preface their statements in that way in a vein attempt to skirt around saying racist things anyway. Supposition or not.
Parent's comment was specifically addressing the problem where people will leap-of-faith logic-jump to racism for merely disagreeing with you, despite not saying anything prejudice or racist.
Ariana Huffington is an ugly troll- can we cut her off?
So if they are going to require real identities, how are they going to deal with people who can easily develop false identities.
I think the real identities are a good thing, but for a different reason: It will clarify to people that their "anonymity" is a sham and a trap and they are not really anonymous to people that want to find out.
Anonymous comments are like posting flyers. They are a necessary part of life.
Win Bitcoin Thru Aug 2013. Hurry.
'Freedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what they’re saying and not hiding behind anonymity,'
Tell that to Silence Dogood.
If you're not with us, you're against us!
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Tell this to the whistleblowers. All of them, which are known by name are hunted by their government.
I should point out that slashdot used to not show where links went to before you clicked on them. goat.cx sorta links used to get people clicking on it all the time. Sorta stupid to try it now.
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 also DO NOT moderate up posts I agree with simply because I agree with them. Many posts I agree with are redundant, insipid, or poorly stated.
I don't think I hand out negative moderation points much at all, but I admit I can't recall even a single case where I downmoderated a post I agreed with, so I have that much bias at least.
--PM
And crybabies. Honestly no one can take personal responsibility for how they react to something they READ ffs?
po. widdle. feelings. I suppose.
The reason you attach your name to your message is to let the audience judge your message according to your celebrity status. When you post a message without a name, there is no specific character to prejudge the message against. This means the message is judged solely by the merit of the message without any prejudice to any character. Shitty messages are judged to be shitty and good messages are judged to be good without any bias resulting from prejudice.
Anonymous posting is the truly egalitarian way to post opinions on the Internet. All people will naturally post stupid ideas and other drivel. Having a name to a message does not stop this from happening, what names do is contribute to a character's celebrity. So when some anonymous troll posts textual drivel, don't think "this coward is hiding behind the veil of non-accountability", you ought to be thinking, "this message is has no worth so I'm not going to take it seriously". Unfortunately, people appear to be so sensitive and bait-addicted that they don't leave worthless messages alone and feel the need to attach their emotions to it. Whenever I encounter anonymous trolls, I normally post one message asking to clarify or improve a certain idea and if they don't respond in good spirit, I move on knowing that they're simply flaming for attention. If I don't care to converse, I will post a quick message of dismissal and move onto other messages that are more deserving of my time.
Homeopathy: a system of alternative medicine
No, not alternative medicine. Alternative TO medicine.
Does this mean the HuffPost won't be posting stories or pieces that quote anonymous sources "close to the situation"?
I thought of this too, but malapropism is only used when the effect is humorous. I used to think malapropism meant a humorous mis_pronunciation_, so I'd say malaprapism instead of malapropism. Little did I know that malapropism is a humorous misuse of a word. [/layered-self-referential-irony]
HuffPost is just another political hack site. There are a lot of them, right, left, up, down. In my experience, those who post or obsess over those kinds of sites really need to get a life. No one learns anything, time simply wasted. Go to the 'Death Clock' website. See how much longer you have on this planet. Ask yourself if yet another opinion on a hack politician or a phony cause is worth what time you have left. Watch a sunset, help a neighbor, read a book.
"There are only two ways of telling the complete truth--anonymously and posthumously." --Thomas Sowell
Casteism
The Wall Street Journal has forced commentators to use their real names for years. It hasn't stopped trolling at all. Some people just don't care what their online reputation is.
That she'd give FB exactly what it wants.
And that she'd be OK with it, under the guise of "those comments are just TOO nasty.
I don't see any irony in it, I see a sad consistency that people on the left and right have, to disregard larger issues of privacy and freedom in favor of convenience and conformity.
You see, they have no way of proving that the name you use is your real name, as long as it sounds realistic.
Sounds like a perfect opportunity to use the names of people you know in real life but dislike and drag them through the mud. Know a total douchebag? Make an account with his name and go maximum White Nationalist. Know a Santorumite? Make an account with his name, come out as a bisexual pedophile, claim to be cheating on "your" wife with another man, say that "you" find "your" two-year-old daughter sexually attractive, and make sure to drop both his wife and daughter's names so anyone who knows him IRL can confirm that it is indeed him.
Using real names doesn't sound like a good idea now, does it?
I'm in exactly the same situation. As far as I know, there's two people on the planet with my name, and I'm one of 'em. And my job is such that I really can't express my opinion publicly on some subjects, even outside of work. Even if I could, the raving conservative hate-monkeys would give me no peace if I spoke my mind. I found that out once, already.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
So that's why they want me to be forced to use their horrible, broken log-in system.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
A significant number of the comments on heavily trafficked news sites are placed by PR forms working for various causes. That's why you often see the same, exact copy on multiple stories appearing quickly after they publish. The PR firms are using tools such as Radian 6 to constantly scan for stories that are relevant to their constituencies, real time alerts come in, quick position meetings are held, and the army of interns and copywriters go at it.
This is not some crazy conspiracy theory, ask anyone in the digital interactive advertising business.
Then there are the OFA trolls, some of which are compensated, and some of which are simply highly passionate people who do it for free. And of course the Aarron Flesar contingent.
The purpose of all of this is to trick the readership into believing that a certain position is more popular than it is. It works, particularly among young people.
PR firms and Ad Agencies are merging these days, and they are big media buyers. Guess who is vying for a share of that media? Yep, you guessed it, the Huffington Post is. By forcing people to give names, she can give preferential treatment and ratings to the paid PR firms who buy advertising on her web sites.
Follow the Money Trail, people, and use some common sense. This has NOTHING do to with anything but PROFIT, and when it comes to greed, both sides in the political debate are equally guilty. The only difference is the left pretends it is against greed....
Murphy was an optimist
Banning anonymous sources.
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.
I have been banned from there for months. The place is a fascist shithole.
And that is that entities like CNN when they did this, and required registration. Quite a few individuals found themselves "blocked" after disagreeing politically. Even though we'd never used swears, profanities, or directly insulted anyone.
The problem is that many entities leverage sign-in requirements as a censoring tool. And that is not cool.
Read what I wrote. Your comments are dribble that has nothing to do with it. I know people who claim that if you do not like Obamacare or do not support his push to ban guns, you are somehow a racist. This is nothing close to prefacing a comment then spitting something racist out. This is saying I don't share the same political beliefs as someone and then those legitimate differences of opinions or ideology all the sudden being claimed they are racist only because the person you do not agree with is black. It is a WTF moment for sure.
Just get rid of comments altogether and instead find a way to direct the conversion to other sites designed specifically for conversion about externally posted stories, e.g. Slashdot. I hate that I can't comment on a story if I want to, but I am not about to become a member of every website under the sun to do so. So in the end I just end up not reading stories on sites that don't support commenting without membership as much.
:T:R:A:N:S:
Hallo.
I think you didn't quite catch the point I was trying to make. It turns out that the address to links has been visible for years, but *to this day* there's someone with a weird bot that produces total nonsense tied to a goat.cx link. Not even a good troll ... stuff like "anaconda why? that is it is? flamingo car racing is suxxor teh best".
Make you a deal. Reply to this with a quick note, it will log into my slashdot mail notification replies with the new subject, and the next one I see, I'll try to dig you up and do a copy&paste of it.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine