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.
Comment on stories under their *facebook accounts.... Nice try, they are simply using this as an excuse to expand their advertising market.
Does this mean no more trolling homeopathic crap?
This would, of course, be news to Publius (Patrick Henry).
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
Identify yourself or be laughed at and ridiculed.
I agree completely!
AC
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
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
this means they will end all 'moderation' and run for cover under the real name 'solution'. It won't mean that HP will stop promoting antisemitism and other hate speech though so it will fascinating to read reports when all their favorites, super users and 'moderators' are openly threatened with death and in some cases murdered in response to the hate speech HP is so fond of promoting.
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!”
Please take the time to post your real name in full. Thank you in advance.
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)
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.
>>>If you are afraid to be known for your comments and insist on posting anonymously
You are assuming everyone who is reading your comments is equally reasonable.
YOU ARE WRONG AND I WILL MURDER YOUR FAMILY!!!!
You don't post under your real name, so we should ignore your comment too. Posting anonymously is not a sign of fear, nor of ill-considered comments, but merely that you are keeping that part of the internet separate from your real life.
*Note: This is a real name policy discussed, not a must have a community identity policy.
CNN's comments are equally terrible. It's hard to believe a reputable news organization allows them on its website.
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.
Well she's not exactly getting any more beautiful herself either..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I largely agree with you.
However, those exceptions are so important, they may outweigh the benefit of having less trolls.
did your mother name you "msobkow"?
you brag in your profile about being a "programmer" that retired on disability... yet you post on this website pretty much constantly... what more does programming require than typing on a computer? maybe you should have remained anonymous and not brazenly advertised your act of fraud against the public.
looks like you got to identify yourself AND be laughed at and ridiculed... but i understand how it's easy for "disabled" programmers to make such simple logical mistakes.
you're an idiot.
unless you're worried about getting arrested by the NSA/DEA/CSIS/government-agency-of-your-choice.
Wasn't the government supposed to be afraid of me, not the other way around?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
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!
I disagree, the fringe folks that need protection often times post and publish anonymously. Unfortunately, there's no way of deciding who should and shouldn't be permitted that freedom without shutting some that need the protection.
In Nazi Germany it was a potentially fatal mistake to publish materials that questioned Hitler's motives and intent. In the US, you could wind up losing everything you had if you wound up on the Blacklist during the Red Scare.
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.
That was before they limited our 2nd amendment right to own tanks, drones, and suitcase nukes. Now they don't have much to fear especially with the militarized police
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.
It is important to have everyone's political opinions show up at the stop of google search results when seeking work.
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!
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.
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.
I really despise the school of thought that if there isnt a name attached to an idea, it obviously has no worth. If a PhD and a streetbum both submit articles on how to suture a wound and both are scientifically correct, does it matter who wrote what article? Would you really spend time talking discrediting the bum's paper solely on who he is and not the content of his work?
Good-bye
I understand that, but I might not want those hastily crafted ideas to show up under a search for my name from google. Many of my opinions are unpopular and unrelated to anything I do for work. But, I don't want future employers to disqualify me because of them.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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?
Go fuck yourself. Speaking the bitter truth and seeing the world as it is will often result in death threats. I don't want to live in a world where I cannot express a valid and intelligent opinion without fear of being shot or arrested.
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.
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.
The next time I join someone's discussion at the sidewalk or get asked by a stranger, remind me to wear an ID badge. So that, you know, I wouldn't be anonymous when commenting or responding and didn't lose all my credibility.
Ezekiel 23:20
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
Those homeosexuals can quit exchanging their extremely diluted bodily fluids and get back in the closet
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
The sad thing is that many people would.
Unhhhh.... I really doubt that "Anonymous Coward" is actually anonymous to anyone except the readers. It must, at least, be associated with an IP address prior to the send button being pressed, and I really doubt that the logs are purged immediately. Anyway, if the stream is being monitored at the ISP, as reported, the information will be there.
IOW, if you were in IT, and actually had that kind of fear, then you wouldn't be posting. Unless, perhaps, you are posting from a coffeehouse, and I doubt the security of that, also, though that's less certain.
I don't know whether you are ignorant or a troll, but if you are ignorant, you probably shouldn't be posting here.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
"The Founding Fathers couldn't envision assault rifles!" the man said, before raising his hand and shouting, "Larboard, from for'd aft, as she bears!"
The man's ship spit twelve pound balls with a shocking force and regularity, completely leveling an entire town within the half hour.
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.
Well considering that Republicans think Obama was responsible for the Katrina debacle, I wouldn't expect any sane responses at all.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/08/21/louisiana_gop_blame_obama_more_for_katrina_response.html
'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.
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
You have a serious lack of imagination because there's a lot of people that will treat you like shit simply for having the wrong opinions or belief or engage in some perfectly reasonable behavior. Like say you're an atheist but know your deeply religious community hates them and maybe you don't want to tout your horn and make it known to any and all, should you then be barred from arguing it anonymously? True, in this case it's probably not worse than that you could stand it but it's not right and it's not fair and it's going to happen if you speak out under your real name. Forcing people to only speak under their real names is the way to self censorship where you avoid saying things that might come back to haunt you. Of course the naive will just say always be true to thy self, just ignore reality and you'll be fine. Sadly in real world reality does not ignore you.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
This is the same Huffington Post that hypocritcally moderates every thread to shape the discussion in favor of their own personal political agenda?
Yes and it is easy to test as well. Post a few posts criticizing Obama (using polite language) in appropriate articles and then post exactly the same posts but replacing Obama with any Republican. Every single post about a Republican will get through but most of those mentioning about Obama will never get posted. Not to mention the childish inanity of the majority of posts there and it validates what Breitbart said about Huffpo: that he is glad he set it up for Arianna because it shows liberals for what they are, a bunch of naive, hateful and ignorant spoiled children.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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!
He probably isn't afraid of some spooks caring about him, but some section manager googling his name or email address and finding shit, then putting him on the industry shitlist and hurting his career.
Umm... I think the idiom involving that gesture involves a posture other than standing, and possibly also nonzero angular momentum.
I can see the fnords!
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?
Argh! Is it September already?
I swear to you that my fake name is a real fake name.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Smart people read at -1 instead of judging the book by its cover.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
pray God exists and is about to end it all.
Translation: we're fucked.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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
I had to Google to find out who Kristen Stewart is.
2 of the first 8 hits were contradictory stories about what how she looked when she was recently spotted at the LA airport "meant" regarding her relationship status (with some other actor I'd never heard of). Did I mention that both of these stories were on HuffingtonPost.com?
And now I almost feel sorry for someone whose existence I wasn't even aware of until 3-4 minutes ago.
OTOH, it also means that I neither watch television, nor have to worry much about gossip columnists speculating that the long face I made yesterday afternoon whilst sitting alone in a café I've probably never been to before means that I'm considering breaking off my engagement or whatever*.
If this means I have a life--due in part to enjoying relative anonymity--then HuffingtonPost can go suck it.
*(I'm taking an extra week off [on doctor's advice] following my vacation after falling seriously ill during same. I got bored and wandered up to a part of the city I rarely go to any longer, but retain a passing familiarity with, since it's near the place where I went to for a Swedish class 2-3 years ago. The long face was because I wasn't sure whether or not I liked the dressing on my Caesar salad. I finally decided it was okay. And I'm feeling mostly okay. And the engagement is still on. Happy now, Arianna?)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
Well, in the 1930's, I believe it was, and elevator operator got hired because of his physics papers. IIRC his name was Fremi.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
" 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
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.
I guess it's not that different from /.
If you weren't so busy playing victim, you would see that the views on politics are actually pretty varied here. The reason you get modded down is because you are so far to the right and so unreasonable that you are actually indistinguishable from a troll. Seriously, APK has participated in more productive debates than you have.
They express the correct party line 'opinions', they are ideologically in line with the site owners....
God damn private property being treated as the owners want! The government should enforce balance so poor little roman_mir can copy sections of The Fountainhead there.
You should read the poll (I'm guessing whoever wrote the associated article didnt). Good luck finding it though. The only reference to it is a screen shot of the question. I'm interested to know how many Democrats thought the same thing. It must have been a lot because they made the poll disappear.
uhhh.... homeopathic?
Yeah. Very diluted, squittery crap. Obviously.
Look at who is on CNN -- that they have trolls posting is unsurprising, because that's their core demographic these days.
CNN hasn't been a reputable news agency in some number of years -- they've thrown all objectivity out the window, and are a screeching partisan entity. It's sensationalist journalism with heavy ties to the Republicans.
I lost respect for them years ago when they were blindly parroting everything GW Bush was telling us as if it was facts. Even while other news sources were refuting those facts (yellow cake being bought by Iraq, anyone?)
CNN used to be a reputable, objective news agency -- but in the last decade they've become anything but in many people's eyes.
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.
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
It's more about a general sense of privacy in a globalised world. For example there are a lot of people who think it's stupid to display their address or phone number on Facebook, yet a few years ago we were all listed by name in the phone book. What drives it is a semi-rational fear of the amplifying effect of the internet.
As part of the politics of human interaction we also compartmentalise our social groups and don't necessarily want them bleeding into each other. In an earlier job I was really embarassed when a girl I worked with came across my posts in a feminist newsgroup from my uni days and brought it up at our dev meeting. That's exactly the sort of situation that makes people use pseudonyms online. Perhaps as society slowly get used to these spheres colliding this will abate.
'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.
http://xkcd.com/202/
There's a joke that is probably a better fit.
If one person calls you an ass, you can laugh it off.
If two people call you an ass, you can walk away.
If a bunch of people call you an ass, you should have yourself fitted for a saddle.
There's an URL around here somewhere for tin-foil hats.
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.
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 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.
Anti-Semitism has little to do with Judaism or Islam and everything to do with racism.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
dissenting opinions are far less likely to be made
Oh really? First name Mark. Last name as spelled. Always has been, always will be. :P
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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.
I wouldn't have read the anonymous article.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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.
The Democratic-leaning polling firm, which provided its results to Talking Points Memo....
If, as anyone looking for the poll should do, you clicked the link... you were taken here: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-louisiana-gopers-unsure-if-katrina-response-was
At that point, you have access to the poll answers in question, the entire poll, as well as links to the shorter one of those as a download from Scribd. At what point did you decide to change the definition of "linked in the article" to "disappear?" It didn't really take much "luck" finding it, just a basic understanding of English and the ability to read.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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.
Sorry, when I click on the link it takes me to the Times-Picayune at Nola.com at which point there are lots of links but none to this survey. Then I went to PPP's website which also doesn't show this poll. Still I would like to see the same poll given to the Democrats in Louisiana. Might be interesting.
I do love to see a comment bouncing up and down from troll to insightful as the "-1 disagree" malcontents fight with the "+1 made me think" supporters. :)
I also enjoy reading the -1 posts that follow below, especially the vitriolic bile that spews from the true trolls who can't come up with an actual constructive statement or argument. When they "flame" me with their hatred, it means they can't argue with me -- I've won the debate.
But most of all, I enjoy reading the counterpoints that make me think. Especially if they actually manage to convince me I was wrong. Because that means I learned something, and there is nothing more valuable in life than to learn.
Someone said that I post under a pseudonym. I do not. "M" is for Mark. The last name is as spelled. I started programming way back in the late 70s and went to university in the early 80s. Before there was any more internet than UUCP. When the first mosaic browsers were created. When everything was based on teletypes and text mode terminals that could only go "beep" in response to a CTRL-G.
Back then people contributed to the discussion systems, such as they were. We emailed with our proper ids. We had no aliases nor pseudonyms save for the naming restrictions enforced by the system administrators of the machines we worked on and the organizations who owned them. Typically the signature for an email was one's real name, phone number, and address so one could discuss the work and the research.
The modern day kids are cowards. They're so afraid of being flamed that you'd think it was something more than impotent words from infantile minds.
But after reading through the responses to my post, I admit one thing: You have to really be willing to take criticism with a grain of salt if you're going to post under your real name. :P
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Would you really spend time talking discrediting the bum's paper solely on who he is and not the content of his work?
The bum's paper? How frequently does a PhD have occasion to need to suture a wound?
Shrug.
Bothers me not.
If people can't come up with a better argument than to call me an "ass", I'm not too worried.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
She's not a spokesperson for anything. She likes the popularity that comes from being head cheerleader.
I am very left of centre in my views, and I find little to recommend her or her vapid website.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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
The US Supreme Court, in upholding a Freedom of Information request to get the list of names of people who signed a petition to get something on a ballot, noted as troubling that the people who wanted the names had admitted they wanted the list so as to publicly shame and harass the signers. That was a suggestion to Congress that they might wanna do something about it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
> 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.
what more does programming require than typing on a computer?
seriously??
---
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pedantry is unbecoming. Speaking to someone face to face removes anonymity.
".../. forces you to post AC if you are critical of Obama and post nothing but facts that they can't refute and want to bury."
Completely untrue, I do it all the time.
'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."
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.
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"?
Oh look, another piece of shit person. Are you a citizen of the United States? If so then either clean up your act, or move to some shitty country where your shitty viewpoint on anonymity is considered "acceptable", because here it's not!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
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.
Pedantry is unbecoming.
You're certainly entitled to that opinion.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
Yeah, but you don't know if it's one person or a dozen modding you down. Sometimes you'll offend someone and they'll want to grind that axe. You can get stalkers on Slashdot, and often those stalkers will get mod points and then spend them all on one person.
I've definitely seen stalkers who follow specific posters around and post a reply to each and EVERY post they make in every topic, telling everyone what an asshole that person is. I'll bet those sort just spend their mod points in one place when they get them.
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
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.
"The Italian navigator has landed in the new world. The natives are friendly."
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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:
You're lucky you don't have a legitimate reason to keep a secret, like being in the closet, or a dissident in Burma.
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