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.
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.
Those cowardly founding fathers!
>The authors used the pseudonym "Publius", in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
Pseudonymity in the age of data aggregation is crucial. Any "real name" policy is very boneheaded, and can lead to endangering the readers.
You are nuts if you post anything, anywhere under real name. Internet has no "right to forget".
Identify yourself...
and get shot... http://mashable.com/2011/11/10/mexico-blogger/
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Not everyone wants to express an opposing view point on Huffington and be called a racist, or be labeled as such. Lets be honest here, Huffington super users are the first to pull the racist card the moment their arguments get refuted. (with maybe the exception of MSNBC comment sections)
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
You can assign a low base score for ACs, and then filter them out using the score filter. That's the right kind of system: it doesn't preclude them from saying things if they have things to say, nor from people volunteering to hear them, but it doesn't require you to listen if you don't want to.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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
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.
" 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
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.
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.
'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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Don't use sarcasm or irony on the internet.
Irony is a very dangerous thing if it isn't backed up by facial expression. There is a reason why professional journalists don't use it outside of polemic opinion pieces. If you want to avoid any misunderstanding you will have to say what you mean.
The same obviously goes for ironic sarcasm.
Humor itsself lives by its context. You will need to make sure everybody has the same context or you will also cause misunderstandings. You'll also have to keep in mind that context might be a cultural one. On the internet you will meet a lot of people in all walks of life, of any creed, of any nationality an presumably a couple of dogs. Don't expect to be funny to everybody no matter how hilarious you are. One person's humor is another person's troll.
20 minutes into the future
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.
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?
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.
Riiiight, I'm sure everyone's going to stop being sarcastic on the internet.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
..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 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