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."

Comments

Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, i am aware of the irony... but nevertheless I have always been in favor of this.

Re:Awesome

[ShanghaiBill]

Although I think this is a stupid policy, I have a very simple answer.

There is an even simpler solution: a moderation system. It seems to work pretty well for Slashdot. Moderation also works well for sites like Stackoverflow. I have never understood why news sites don't implement something similar. That way the good 1% of anonymous speech is available, and the 99% that is garbage is not seen by most readers (but is still there if anyone wants to read at -1).

Re:Awesome

[Artraze]

How does signing a post with a real name have anything in the slightest to do with standing behind what you say? From a purely logical perspective it adds nothing of value expect maybe an improved ability to make ad hominem attacks. And even if we ignore the extreme difficulty of verifying the supposed real name, real names don't even attempt to be unique. I most certainly do not stand behind things written by people who share my name and yet you have no way of distinguishing me from the author.

In short, a real name adds nothing but confusion. Now, maybe if you attach a publicly visible address to the name the you could improve upon a simple email address in terms of identification. However, chances are that the only additional standing up you'll be doing in that case is in response to getting swatted by some clown.

Personally, I'm plenty happy to "fucking stand behind" my comments in the forum where I make them. I feel no need to sign my posts "come at me (or someone with a similar name) bro".

~ Artraze on Slashdot

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

The downside of moderation systems is seeing highly-rated horrible posts. On a messy free-for-all forum like 4chan, you expect horrible shit. It's far more jarring to see hateful ignorant trolling get +5 insightful. Every time, I reevaluate ever visiting Slashdot again. Moderation reveals the biases of your cohort.

Re:Awesome

[epyT-R]

The problem with moderation systems is that they tend to support the populist view, which is not always the correct one. The premise is that posts will be moderated up for correctness and down for incorrectness, but this is not what happens, as the posts ending up at the top usually represent the prevailing ideological belief of the majority of users. Even meta moderation doesn't help much as these popular posts are then moderated back down using the same fallacies, resulting in a different position on the same false dichotomy.

For sites that want to foster honest discussion, I say strip away the moderation and 'reputation' systems, and leave it anonymous. If someone's position is the truth, there is nothing for him to worry about. The only reason someone might want to censor the truth is because a part of it clashes with his ideological/political/emotional position. This should be discouraged.

Re:Awesome

[Smauler]

There's a reason for anonymous voting, you know.

Re:Awesome

[Smauler]

Moderation systems with anonymous comments allow everyone to say what they want. If the community downmod it, so be it. The posts are still posted, people can still read them.

Requiring people to register limits discourse.

Re:Awesome

[Archfeld]

Tell that to the founding fathers and the many many anonymously written and distributed pamphlets that stirred public sentiment for the cause of rebellion/revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Anonymous_speech

Re:Awesome

[tolkienfan]

Moderation, at least on slashdot, is not intended to find truth.
It's intended to promote discussion and hide trolls and abuse.
Moderators are supposed to up mod posts when they are on topic and interesting - there is no "-1 disagree" mod here.

I think this system would be best, if the moderators actually followed the rules.

Re:Awesome

[poity]

Not only that, but real names will allow the mob to chase and shame you on facebook and linkedin, potentially ruining you for saying things that the mob doesn't like. I get voted down often on NPR for making the case that Affirmative Action hurts Asian American students, and have been banned from a section of that site recently for trying to point out the flawed narrative underlying the Zimmerman coverage.

It's so very easy for people to shout racist (for the left) or socialist (right) or whatever stupid label, and just try to silence you with shame. I firmly believe that an honorable person would agree that it is better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to condemn an innocent, but it seems these sites that demand real names would rather sacrifice as many innocents as needed in order to eliminate the guilty.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Comment on stories under their *facebook accounts.... Nice try, they are simply using this as an excuse to expand their advertising market.

Real names?

[Daetrin]

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.

Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Identify yourself or be laughed at and ridiculed.

I agree completely!

AC

Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments

[fustakrakich]

Identify yourself...

and get shot... http://mashable.com/2011/11/10/mexico-blogger/

Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments

[sinij]

>>>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!!!!

Re:If you are afraid to be known for your comments

[yelvington]

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.

Trolls uglier than ever...

[fustakrakich]

Well she's not exactly getting any more beautiful herself either..

Their admins are the worst trolls

[GodfatherofSoul]

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.

The USA was founded on Anonymous Comments

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Does this mean no more trolling homeopathic cra

[rubycodez]

Those homeosexuals can quit exchanging their extremely diluted bodily fluids and get back in the closet

Re:I have long wondered...

[number17]

The trolls fuel the fire and keep people going back. This increases pageviews and ad revenue.

Re:Or down moderation

[bfandreas]

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.

Re:Or down moderation

[AmiMoJo]

Riiiight, I'm sure everyone's going to stop being sarcastic on the internet.