Slashdot Mirror
Internet Commenting Growing Away From Anonymity
An article from the Associated Press makes the case that internet commenting is slowly but surely transitioning away from widespread anonymity. More and more sites are finding that the prevalence of vitriolic comments is driving away new readers, not to mention other, more reasonable commenters. Sites like YouTube and the Huffington Post are leading the charge, requiring users to log in via Google+ and Facebook respectively in order to establish a real-world identity. The Post's managing editor, Jimmy Soni, said, 'We are reaching a place where the Internet is growing up. These changes represent a maturing (online) environment.'
"Nearly three-quarters of teens and young adults think people are more likely to use discriminatory language online or in text messages than in face to face conversations, according to a recent poll ... Newspapers are also turning toward regulated comments. Of the largest 137 U.S. newspapers — those with daily circulation above 50,000 — nearly 49 percent ban anonymous commenting, according to Arthur Santana, assistant communications professor at the University of Houston. Nearly 42 percent allow anonymity, while 9 percent do not have comments at all.
This is just nuts. The internet isn't growing up, big money sites like the LA Times and Reuters are just getting lazy. What ever happened to comment moderation? Why is it so fantastically difficult to screen these things?
This signature has Super Cow Powers
People are just being forced to give up anonymity. There's a difference.
When my local Gannett-owned newspaper switched from a PHPbb type forum to the new Facebook comments, it pretty much killed discussion altogether.
The irony, of course, is despite the big banner extolling the virtues of non-anonymous commenting ('"it'll make everyone play nice!" Like that's something we give a shit about) the people who actually had anything intelligent to say were the ones who stopped commenting; since it's still pretty easy to create a fake facebook account, trolls abound.
Seriously, sometimes it's like 4chan without pictures over there.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
1. The change is happening on companies that make money by connecting advertisers with potential customers. A large part of their revenue comes directly or indirectly through data mining their user base. If their user base is bogus names and bogus information then the value of the data mining is less. Therefore it is in the interest of these companies to get real information in their databases. This is the primary reason this is desirable.
2. Smaller websites that are if anything more known for thoughtful commentary have no such program.
3. There has been a consistent effort by politicians to get identities put on internet comments so they can file law suits or other forms of heavy handed harassment against anyone that would dare criticize them.
4. While internet trolls are an issue, anyone that has been on the internet for awhile gets used to them. You just don't take them seriously anymore. You recognize them for what they are and then you "nothing" them. They are deleted if only from your own perception.
5. It is telling that leading the charge to have identities on the internet are entities such as the Chinese government etc... This is who you're praising.
Will we gain something by having real identities on the internet? Yes. But we will lose a great deal more. This is a fool's bargain. We would do well to protect our anonymity if only because it will protect our ability to speak our minds. Those that advocate for real names are advocates for censorship. Point blank.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
.... with far too much time on their hands and far too little psychological stability to completely ruin a forum for thousands. I think many, if not most of us, have seen that happen - one bad apple and all that. Add in the social media awareness of P.R. firms (or special interest groups) who will hire paid commenters to astro-turf a particular point of view and you have a recipe for mass incommunication.
I welcome restrictions on who can comment and what someone can say such that we raise the signal to noise ratio and tone down the inanity, the crazy and the spam. I think we have left the era of unrestricted speech in much the same way that we once left the era of unrestricted radio communications. Just as we once started licensing in order to make use of the airwaves for everyone, we now have to monitor and moderate in such as way so as outlandish ideas ideas will not be restricted but outlandish people will be.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
ego/fear based WMD on credit neogod corepirate nazi crown royals herding us like captivated believers. nothing new in centuries. free the innocent stem cells... never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to momkind our spiritual centerpeace.
Isn't it easier for users to just ignore the over the top ridiculous comments? Noone is really interested anyway, and any form of relevant discourse would beget better discussions. People aren't stupid, they know when the comments aren't worth spending time over. Only the publications that want to retain their veneer of respectability restrict posts, driving people to meta forums to do their discussion. Aggregate enough of them, the meta site will face the same problems, but this time without having to bow to the advertising dollar.
That is all.
Problem solved.
Big Brother thinks this development is doubleplus good!
Take a look at the Facebook comment section of any sports article. The caustic comments are still there, and contrary to what they want you believe, are worse than ever. Now, instead of your typical benign flames and trolls you have truly nasty, personal insults aimed at a poster's wife and kids or something. It's truly disgusting. If these sites thought real identities were going to stop this thing, they were sorely mistaken. The masses have absolutely no dignity.
'We are reaching a place where the Internet is growing up. These changes represent a maturing (online) environment.' - what's so grown up about attaching real names to online posts? Is stifling anonymity really that mature, or is it just about easier peer pressure guided moderation with marketing prospects and profiling? Paper mail can be anonymous and they can send comments to newspapers that get published and people don't seem to have an issue with that, so what's the problem with it when it is online?
Sites like YouTube and the Huffington Post are leading the charge, requiring users to log in via Google+ and Facebook respectively in order to establish a real-world identity.
I still maintain my fake but according to facebook and Google+, "true identities" of myself. And guess what; it was very easy to get it set up.
People have different things in mind when they talk about anonymous (or non-anonymous) posts. From most anonymous to least, we have
1. Anonymously posted via Tor or similar concealing network (but you need to be smartah about it than that Hahvahd kid was)
2. AC like this one (the NSA presumably knows who I am, if they care)
3. Logged in, registered via an email account e.g. gmail or yahoo mail
4. Personal blog under a pseudonym, e.g. Mini Microsoft
5. Logged in, registered via a so-called "real name" account like FB
6. Personal blog under a real name
Pretty much all arguments against online anonymity boil down to the desire for people to feel fear.
Particularly, variants of fear of how they will be treated if they write what they think.
Fear of how their colleagues will react, fear of how their family will react, fear of retribution from those who disagree, etc.
You wanted to write anonymously? Well, now you have to write under your full name. How are you going to modify what you write as a result, and why?
I point out that the Hollywood List of McCarthyism was NOT a government policy, but a VOLUNTARY NON-GOVERNMENTAL policy that simply involved banning people from jobs if they had particular views which they voiced. Was this a restriction on freedom of speech? Obviously not - people must count on having reactions against them if they voice objectionable views.
the ignore button also gives you the option to ignore any comments that quote someone you ignored, so you can truly remove someone from your mental space if you don't want to waste brain cycles on them
Hi.
My name is Johan Smith, and I live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC.
I just logged in to say, you're all a bunch of cunts. Soulskill is a cunt. The mods are all cunts. And this article was written by a cunt.
Anyone who thinks that non-anonymous commentating will drive away the trolls, and the hacks, and the flamebaiters, is insane, and/or a cunt.
Also, anyone who thinks that people are using their real names on the Internet is probably wrong.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
It's the exact reason why people left Huffington post in droves afterwards. Deleted it from my bookmarks and won't go back!
Ok, not really, but what a sensational headline!
Most of the sites using facingbooks and other comment systems ban comments someone, somewhere, in the media property don't like, which turns out to be most of the interesting comments. And then comments just die.
The "Internet is growing up" has many meanings, but the one the most powerful Americans want is one that is a broadcast-only sh!t pipe the broadcaster can endlessly quantize and monetize their viewers. Discouraging comments fits in nicely with those plans!
I don't think so!
This is just a push by NSA-backed companies to make it easier for them to track everyone's comments and will allow for more accurate targeting by their drones. I don't trust Facebook or the Google so let's hope this doesn't come to fruition.
Listen, part of the reason anonymous (and to a lesser extent, pseudonymous) commenting is a good thing is because you can say something you wouldn't normally be able to say for fear of some sort of real life consequences. I'm not talking about "trolling," I'm talking about political opinions or affinity for ideas or concepts that are looked down upon in polite society. Tying your real name to this means that anyone can find it and stifles free speech. Additionally, truly anonymous speech has to be judged on content, since there is no concept of reputation. If you say something stupid, someone will probably call you out on it and construct a logical explanation as to why you are wrong. Ironically, anonymous speech tends toward a place of more well-informed opinions, even if individual messages may vary greatly in quality.
This move away toward "real name" tie-ins is bad any way you cut it. Yes, it cuts down on "trolling," but the cost is too high. There are other ways to cut back on that, anyway, like hiring more effective moderation staff. Even 4chan has a moderation team and users are able to report individual posts (though their moderation team is rather spotty and various less effective solutions often crop up in their absence). There are problems with any solution, but real-name tie-ins will end up with people tip-toeing around, which stifles intelligent discussion and leads to relative echo chambers where only the popular opinion is parroted.
Ok, not really, but what a sensational headline!
Most of the sites using facingbooks and other comment systems ban comments someone, somewhere, in the media property don't like, which turns out to be most of the interesting comments. And then comments just die.
The "Internet is growing up" has many meanings, but the one the most powerful Americans want is one that is a broadcast-only sh!t pipe the broadcaster (Media Monopolists) can endlessly quantize and monetize their viewers. Discouraging comments fits in nicely with those plans!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Internet Commenting is not growing away from anonymity at all. However, some high profile sites that value traffic over content have determined that boring places tend to attract more people since the vast majority of people simply is extremely boring. Anonymous non-boring commenting will always be around. It's just not compatible with the desires of the bulk of advertisers that pay for the boring parts Internet.
0x or or snor perron?!
the hoi polloi getting above themselves and actually having an opinion for our selves we are meant to be passive consumers for their advertisers
I generally refuse to post anything but the most anodyne statements on public web forums under my own name. Who knows what political or cultural opinion some future interlocutor might find offensive?
However, give me a pseudonym and I'm happy to post. The risk of search engines making the association is small. I'm fine with being legally responsible (and culturally anonymous) for what I post, which is precisely what pseudonymity gives me.
As with moderation, this is something Slashdot gets more or less right.
Talk about going full circle. Back in the days of usenet your identity for comments was tied to your real name and your professional email. Then we had the anonymous internet with little in the way of ties that came when the AOL crowd got internet. I've often wondered what the internet of today would be like with the policies of then.
The big difference was that most people worked for academia which is a very open environment where people don't get disciplined for opinions.
A concerted effort is being made to stifle anonymous expression. Ruling powers would control and police the Internet.
But speech is unlike driving a car. Free speech is freedom of thought, freedom of communication, freedom of assembly.
I don't need a license for that.
Anon.
Slashdot editor Soulskill sucks cocks! And CowboyNeal is a cum-guzzling karma whore!
I always post anonymously for obvious reasons.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
1) Potential for greater liability if the Site Owner tries to moderate but occasionally lets one slip.
2) Potential for greater profit if linked accounts are worth more to advertisers
3) China cracked down on anonymity (article from a year ago http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-12/28/china-internet-registration) and we can't be left behind
Gently reply
This is for advertising/data mining purposes only. It has nothing to do with the "maturity" of the Internet, and it's completely wrong.
Quite frankly you'd be silly to volunteer your identity in any public forum unless you're willing to deal with the consequences. And the consequences of being in the public spotlight are real and plenty.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The ability to take on a non-trackable identity makes posting less stressful for me. I think it enhances the discussions as a whole, despite the occasional troll.
~
~
Slashdot and almost every other site with comments lead the charge on all this fucking YEARS ago.
Yes, you can still post anon here, but no one will mod you up to visibility unless you post pure gold. Mostly, if you choose to not post whatever passes for "pc" here you will be trolled and belittled for not having the guts to make an account(alias) here so that you might rethink having an opinion other than what the gloriously well known posters of this fine board would tolerate. Only the 'known' have opinions worth digesting, all others are not worth the power to light those pixels. Sound familiar?
btw for whomever is designing the 'beta' Slashdot, you should quit and go flip burgers.
If the entire benefit of removing anonymous posting is the implicit threat of force against commentators, who would take such a site seriously? Who would say "if you write the word 'nigger' in any context ever, you'll simply be hosing future employment opportunities"? Or that if you say something unpopular enough, that the majority can lynch you for it later?
It's all a sword to your neck. Anyone who wants your face to be associated with each and every one of your words is threatening real life violence upon you. They are doing it for reasons of their own profitability, and nothing else.
Of course, you can have a fake facebook, fake google plus, fake everything. Dedicated trolls will. But much more threatening, you can have a dumbkid who doesn't GIVE A FUCK and posts wildly offensive shit under his real name at 18 and then at 28 finds that the data miners really have his number.
Non-anonymous commenting only exists as an intention to harm the userbase, with real threatened force. It's the threat of violence.
The CNN forums are an excellent example of an utterly mindless cesspool of hate, stupidity, and trolling combined with Google+/Facebook/Twitter reduced anonymity.
Reddit's an excellent example of pseudonymous posters behaving due to a combination of user-based moderation and Pavlovian pellet-seeking with a dash of "just right" (what I call it when a site feels simple and lightweight and paints fast and doesn't fill the browser's logs with 500 javascript and CSS errors per page paint... hint hint).
So, I don't buy the argument that this is about reducing vitriolic comments, though I could buy that it's about making the mistake of believing that there's an Easy button that can be pressed to reduce vitriolic comments.
We're still in the midst of learning how deeply our own government has violated our privacy and websites decide now is a good time for people to give up their pseudonyms and reveal their true identities? Are they that stupid?
Just because sites are doing it in no way indicates that users *want* it that way.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
The community is not. People who are concerned about privacy simply avoid commenting on pages that outlaw having a private moment in life.
I stopped commenting on YouTube. I stopped commenting on various news pages. I guess given time they will find out what drives even more people away than vitriolic comments is no comments worth reading at all. Because for some odd reason, when I peruse the various pages I used to frequent before they became part of the 1984 set, the quality of comments in general dropped, it didn't improve. Now you have mostly self-absorbed showoffs that would dance naked in the street if it only meant 5 seconds of YouTube fame.
People who commented because they wanted to give people a piece of their mind, more often than not inspiring or insightful rather than destructive (and the destructive ones were easily blended out, given the omnipresent ability to simply ignore people you don't want to hear from), are moving away from these sites. There is now very little reason to read YouTube comments. Or, given the fact that it has become virtually impossible to watch YouTube videos without stuttering or loading problems anyway, to use that page altogether.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Anonymity is not what you think it is on the Interwebs, at least in the U.S. Given the amount of data collected by the NSA, if you posting anonymously becomes a person of interest to Federal law enforcement, then your anonymity is gone as it doesn't take much to figure out who you are by your traffic.
Facingbook certainly knows who you are, anonymous comments included, if you use that site.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It's kind of a silly thing to say that the net's growing up. If anything, it's regressing and for those of us who remember what things looked like in 1990, they know that this statement is out of touch. The some of the biggest sites these days are so noisy and nonsesical that anyone would be hardpressed to find any kind of maturity. And, please don't make a random argument for Facebook because, let's face it, Facebook is where you go to post pictures of your life that are really not representative of your life at all. That's not maturity, that's a desperate cry for help. Even gamers will notice that their favorite web sites have become more gaudy. It used to be that I could go to a gaming web site and get news. Now, when I look at the front page every one of these sites have giant images that can be seen from the ISS, much less written content on the front page, content that's stuffed to the gills with spelling and gramatical errors, and a site design that's pushing its own form of social media. That's not maturity. Maturity happens on sites that push for civilised and intelligent discourse because they're designed to do that. You'll always get some bs, even on /., from ACs that wait for a post to be put up to post something vile, but that's everywhere. If someone wants to complain about immature comments on their sites, they should go look in the mirror because they're doing something wrong.
Unless you happen to be the owner of said forum, you have no right to expect your comment to remain posted under all circumstances. Some forums are run by asshats, but if you don't like it then leave. Don't confuse your right to free speech with the right to use someone else's property and resources as mouthpiece to publish your speech. You are more than welcome to pony up the cash and start your own forum or website and publish your POV all you want, and that is what the Constitution guarantees, but not on someone else's dime. Websites are private property and whoever owns it is free to edit it however they wish.
Luckily, my real name is TheloniousToady. I started posting here under my name after another account that used a pseudonym went to negative Karma when I posted some heartfelt opinions about a certain hot subject of Slashorthodoxy. Silly me.
That was early in my posting career here. Now, I know that the heartfelt-ness of any opinion isn't relevant when it conflicts with Slashorthodoxy. The proprietors of this fine site seem to recognize this by giving us the option of easily posting as Anonymous Coward - which, BTW, isn't my real name.
Now, if somebody could just create a system of user moderation that doesn't have any underlying orthodoxy...
for the soul purpose of stealing your personal information so they can sell it to advertisers.
That's the only reason. The rest is lies.
This has nothing to do with internet etiquette,
this is all about tracking users and mining data.
Selling our profiles to the highest bidder.
""More and more sites are finding that the prevalence of vitriolic comments is driving away new readers. And how are they finding this out? Are the readers that are driven away contacting them to let them know? I doubt it. MOST readers don't even look at the comments...
Ever since my local paper went to Facebook comments (and even turns off comments for certain stories), I have wondered how difficult it would be to set up a website that simply has links back to the stories and allows anonymous comments. A browser extension would allow the associated comments from the commenting website to appear beneath the story when one browses to it. Maybe such a thing already exists, but I don't know about it.
I think the places that are trying to justify* switching to real-name commenting are making the all-too-common correlation/causation mistake.
Early places that switched to real-name commenting did see a decrease in trolls and an increase in comment quality. However, this was because early real-name commenting systems were clunky - you had to create your own detailed profile and such - so it kept out those who did not seriously want to comment.
The more recent trend is to enforce real-name commenting by using a Facebook (or, at least in theory, Google+) login. This *decreases* the difficulty of posting, and thus decreases the quality of comments.
Think about it. How many articles have you read where you wanted to post a reply, even just a brief one, only to give up and move on when you realized you would have to create an account, do that whole email verification thing, and maybe pass a Captcha? It's just not worth it, unless you have something really important to say, or if you regularly visit the site and regularly wish to leave comments.
But a Facebook login? Everyone and their grandmother has one of those. Plenty of people have multiple. And you're automatically logged in damn near anywhere. Leaving a comment becomes almost effortless - posting "lol fuk u the holocuast was fak evry1 nos this dumass"** takes only as long as it takes to type. And that's why the commenting sections go to shit when you use Facebook logins.
* I'm not fooled for a second into thinking this is their actual reason - they just want more data to mine.
** Ironically, this took far longer for me to write than any other sentence in this post, because I had to put a lot of thought in to come up with a completely asinine (but still unfortunately realistic) comment and write it so poorly that it was clearly satire.
It isn't about trolling, it is about data mining and it is about tracking people to retaliate against them in some situations.
Just refuse to use comment sections that make you give a real identity.
Think of real world identification for online comments like the suggestion that we replace seatbelts and airbags in automobiles with a sharp metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel. Imagine how much more carefully the average person would drive!
Naturally, no sane society would do that to cars, but the equivalent vulnerability in online commenting would do wonders for civility, and I also believe improve the quality of the content. Yes, yes, there would be some horror stories about people posting reasonable comments who are persecuted, but then, life is risk, isn't it?
Just to show my money, er, identity is where my mouth is, here's my real life information. Feel free to send any and all comments about my post.
Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500 (202) 456-1111
It's newspeak, you shouldn't take it literally. What he means is, the Internet is broken, the war was won by companies who sell the privacy of their users, and by Stasi governments spearheaded by the US. What you now see are the remnants of the Internet. We need a new network.
Any idiot who could log into Fidonet - meaning literally anyone, since there were thousands of such BBS around the world - could access the Internet in some fashion even from the late 1980s. This belief about there being an academic-only wall is a bunch of hogwash.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
and less ...and less
Oh really? Because it's totally impossible to get a gmail account without giving your real name?
I can register in FB or G+ with a name like Consuela Bananahammock, if I want to comment "anonymously" ... And yet ,no one of you know if that is actually my real name :P
Moderation requires manpower. Nobody in their right mind volunteers to moderate comments for for-profit businesses, so they have to pay moderators. Which they don't want to do. Which means either you get spam, flames and shitposting, or forced registration/real id.
This guy at the Atlantic uses unpaid moderators, but he also does a lot of moderating himself... if you call banning people for questioning his assumptions or criticizing him as an author moderation.
He loves to get into arguments with commenters in the threads on his posts, but only as long as you comment very specifically on the facts of that specific post. If you call his motivations or technique into question, BAM! he bans you, not only from his threads, but from commenting on anything at the Atlantic site.
Disclaimer; obviously I ran afoul of his sensibilities, and got banned for pointing out he does what he claims he doesn't.
He's very proud of the way he polices his site and prevents posters from disagreeing with him in any fashion that challenges how he controls the conversation.
If you never want to see a comment by a poster again, then you hit the mute button on that person and their comments are never seen again. Like they dont exist. The server can track how many mutes are on a person and if enough are there, then a human can step in and scope the individual and issue a reprimand if necessary. Of course if you mute someone then automatically you are muted for them...its always bi-directional whoever initiates it. Would that be so hard?
And maybe your website signup rate is going down because of all the personal information you are requiring during signup and the captcha you are using for proof of life.
Norwegian Aftenposten.no news is terrible.
Apparently they dont allow people to simply "comment" on a piece of news. Apparenly Aftenposten believe themselves to have "debates". Maybe hiding behind the idea of there being a "discussion", as if it was some kind of meeeting, for demanding that people type their full name when commenting.
1) They insist on people, not only logging into something like Disqus for example, they apparently pre approve comments before showing up in many if not simply in all cases and only show comments that are associated with a full name. Anything else is barred from appearing to anyone other than yourself it seems.
2) Aftenposten.no apparently disallows commenting entirely on most of its news items. Presumably it is Aftenposten that select which news items people are allowed to comment on.
3) It is reason to believe that Aftenposten deny people the possibility for commenting on particularily interesting topics or topics that otherwise might be deemed controversial. Aftenposten themselves have apparently no qualms in repeating such news. And as such one might wonder if Aftenposten acts as a microphone for political activity by the powers that be.
4) Afaik, Aftenposten closes down their "commentary" fields at night.
5) Aftenposten is known in one instance for simply closing and removing a commentary field regarding "NAV" (a public service receiving lots of complaints), without a justified reason that would merit the removal of criticism entirely. Iirc, a NAV worker was murdered by a person not native to the country.
6) I have the impression that commentary fields at Aftenposten sometimes end up vanishing and then reappearing later on. If the commentary field is not simply being hidden this way, I find it annoying that the commentary field does not stay up consistently every day after the particular news item and commentary field are created.
If anyone in the media being accused of prescreening people's comments and then seemingly deny it by claiming that they don't do it "necessarily", one might wonder if they prescreen comments made by certain individuals, singled out beforehand, for pre screening.
Most people have more to fear from employers than the NSA.
Not all, though. We know from recent Snowden leaks that the NSA has been collecting information on the pornography usage of individuals critical of the US for purposes of blackmail, it's not beyond consideration that they may use such techniques against grassroots activists. Organise the next Tea Party or Operation Wall Street event, upset enough of the rich and powerful, and discover soon after that somehow a list of every kinky chat service and image board you visit has found its way into the hands of the local press along with proof of shared identity. Or maybe those incredibly racist rants you made when you were fourteen and didn't know better.
I've certainly plenty of skeletons in the closet. Never mind the political and religious views. 'Raven' isn't a name, it's a species identifier for a character I use in some adult roleplay settings to play all manner of perverse things, largely involving tentacles. Given I also have a job which involves working with children, a blackmailer could have a field day if they knew my real identity.
I am not myself on either Google+ or Facebook.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Think of real world identification for online comments like the suggestion that we replace seatbelts and airbags in automobiles with a sharp metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel. Imagine how much more carefully the average person would drive!
Thank goodness nobody would ever make such a satirical suggestion if they had to put it in print! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
And thank goodness that nobody ever had anything worthwhile to say that needed to be said anonymously!! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
[heard you like satire, so I posted some satire in your satire xzibit.jpg]
I actually face more discriminatory language when I talk to people face to face. Leave my skin color, age, appearance and clothing choices out of the conversation please.
Yes because we all know it's not possible to create a dummy Google+ or facebook account to post anonymously.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I don't use my real name on forced google+
Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
1. More profit from advertisers because they see real names as more valuable as they can be linked to offline identities (self explanatory)
2. Spam wars, no one would risk social suicide by pitching a product, nobody would be seen dead trying to push penis enlargement pills using their real identity, and those that do would quickly become known as shrills and auto filtered accordingly.
So how are you going to create a fake globally unique, working mobile phone number in order to get that fake Facebook account verified?
Some sites, like Huffingtonpost require a "registered" Facebook account, now as I said in the past you will see the real danger of Facebook emerge, it will be your de facto login for the Internet,.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Just because one part of the government COULD find out doesn't mean your local congressman has the pull to use those resources.
Piss off the president... sure... the NSA might be all over you. Heck, the IRS probably will be auditing you by dinner. But annoy the mayor? Less likely.
In any case, if we maintain our relative anonymity then it will be complicated even for the president to find out. Which is in the public interest.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I remember when slashdot had anonymous comments enabled.
It changed though, and now you need to change lots of options to see them.
Anonymity doesn't entail vitriol nor vice versa. I'm occasionally vitriolic and I use my actual name on forums and comment sections. I couldn't care if people are "scared away from the service" by that. I get way too many pluses, likes, and other positive responses to give a crap.
At any rate. If some web site tries to make you give a "real name" just fake it. There's nothing they can put in your way to ensure reality that you can't just get around, spoof out, or otherwise hack.
The whole thing about nasty shysters hiding behind pseudonyms is older than the world wide web. It's the darker side of anonymity. But there's no getting rid of it. If you try to get rid of the xBADxCATx13x 's in the world you're just going to be inundated with Ron Chauls III 's and Franklin Scarlet's and so on.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
I've certainly plenty of skeletons in the closet. Never mind the political and religious views. 'Raven' isn't a name, it's a species identifier for a character I use in some adult roleplay settings to play all manner of perverse things, largely involving tentacles. Given I also have a job which involves working with children, a blackmailer could have a field day if they knew my real identity.
OK, so maybe this is the hard-core libertarian in me talking but...
Right on, brotha. More power to ya.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
In small and large towns alike, fear of reprisal is very real.
I cannot write a letter to the editor in my town because anything I said would likely be used against me in future business dealings as a technology consultant.
Maybe your consulting dollars come from out of state and you think you can't be touched? Well, maybe your spouse, or a family member, work for a business where they could lose their job due to your beliefs in government transparency. You think you're doing the right thing, and are "protected", by recording and publishing video of government meetings, but not everyone agrees. It happens here, and elsewhere.
People hold grudges, and they use their connections to get revenge. Anonymity is important.
And here on slashdot, I can't even post two anonymous messages within a period of "2 hours, 5 minutes" - on two different topics. That's pretty bad. Apparently AC's don't generate ad revenue.
There are many things which, though legal and quite harmless, are nontheless seen as socially unacceptable to the point of endangering family relationships, social access and employment. Internet pornography is one of them. It's also a very commonplace one.
I just happen to perfer the written word to photographs.
Requiring users to log in via Google+ and Facebook respectively in order to establish a real-world identity.
Yes, because everyone uses their "real" identity on G+ and FB!
..so its still anonymous. Yes registering on ANY site is ass backwards, but you can still us fake names.
Growing up? The sites that disallow anonymity are generally the least mature anyway, not even counting audience participation. If you only want intelligent discourse, you should start a forum, not post your agenda loudly and clearly in "articles" in order to generate some quick click-thru cash.
I suspect that the next big headline will be "as readership dwindles, sites like Huffpo hire people to write comments for them to try to attract the kind of audience they want instead of the general population". And as usual, anonymity will be painted as some evil beast that needs slaying, rather than a victim of the financial realities of these opinion rags.
into a curated society where real privacy is only given to the top 1% and the security organs of the state.
Great plan, Mr. & Mrs. Unintended.
These days trolls take pride in their work and want to be identified with it.
This unsettles me...
But I want it taken a step further, linked to digital IDs provided by government.
Nobody should have the right not to be traced, in real life, or the internet. All packets should be tied to a users identify, authenticated to prevent abuse and anonymous attacks.
>requiring users to log in via Google+ and Facebook
>real-world identity
I've got four google accounts. That's not counting the throwaways and burners, I keep those four.
Two facebooks and only one twitter, but that's not bad considering I've never actually logged into the sites, just fed the creds out to obnoxious integrations.
Dumbfucks. Submitter too, if he thinks "registering an account" equates to sites condemning anonymity. It's an anti-bot measure and claiming otherwise is blatant misinformation (a lie) or impressive stupidity.
If I've incensed you with my post, feel free to "hold me accountable" at my accounts. My "real-world identity" is readily available:
~Dr. Nonanym Cypherpunk
someone give me the internet's address so I can request it not do this? .can help, but I can't find that address either. And I tried Israel, Turkey, China, but these are entities that don't seem to have an address, either.
Maybe the U.S
Is facebook biased? Yeah, facebook is against a dislike button.
a bunch of cock mongering shit for brains fags.
It's so nice that anonymous commenting is a thing of the past...
I envision a distributed hash table, where URLs are keys and comments are values. Uncensorable, pseudonymous comments for every webpage ever. Nice, eh?
Better yet read the comments on Facebook. I've seen people use 4 letter words when talking to their friend of their friend's grandmother. There's a reason Facebook doesn't have a "dislike" button, even with real names.
I try.
I set out years ago to build this "online brand" (my term for it). It's pretty solidly PG-13, maybe with a few comments straying into R. Now, PG-13 does include a few pointed words ... but when it's a movie, we're all fine with it.
But overall the tone is pretty level - I try for a +1 Funny +1 Insightful spin.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
to openly say.
So the truth is never heard and when it is it is not believed.
I'll reply to you just so you see it because the other fella was AC.
Another incentive is that slowly we begin to roughly notice each other. It's the same "1000 posters" in all the threads, any 60-130 +/- 17. I'll leave that to my statistical betters, but slowly you begin to notice the "regulars", confirmed by checking the id's, vs the scores of newer accounts.
The surprising thing is we have magically resisted the urge to create a downloadable database of our comments - nothing could be conceptually easier. But we sorta let "bygones be bygones" once or twice. Like the day I thought I was Teh $hit creating a Book Cypher. (But which would have still been beyond 91% of people here to break.)
We can gripe where the "magic cutoff is", but both of us are Under -1Mil in our ID, you're ahead of me, I'm guessing July 2002 or something when you joined.
The other annoying thing according to help is there's no interface to auto-bulk download our comments here because I have at least 700 Blog topics in my cumulative comments here, but one project to hand harvest them just died out.
But no, joining in January 2014 with an ID like 3142344 doesn't do anything for anyone anymore. You have to have "been here".
(No lawn to get off of. Remember? We can't afford lawns. Just have a coffee on me.)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
No, its not. Wanting to remain anonymous by default is the right thing to do, and has nothing to do with 'growing up'.
Id call it some sort of fascism, if it was government controlled.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The requirement to sign up with a real identity based on say Google+ or Facebook is the reason I stopped commenting on a number of new blogs and web sites (Jalopnik, I am looking at you). My personal concern is the lack of privacy and the possibility of opening up yourself to all sorts of social engineering attacks. I mean, the information we post on the social networks, amazon, etc is already too much. And now, every post you make on the web is publicly identifiable with your persona. This kind of freaks me out.
In my opinion, web site operators are simply getting lazy. There is plenty of code available to make self-moderating discussion boards possible (such as this one). They just want to outsource everything. This is a boon for yahoo, google, and facebook since people who otherwise wouldn't sign in are now forced to use their services.
Why do they require a Facebook account? OpenID is a good open alternative for federated authentication, which does not force a business to be in bed with user's data voracious Facebook.
1) Advertising will become more lucrative. The attempt to de-anonymize has dollars and cents reasons. It's the reason behind store discount cards. You use the card so the store can target coupons and advertising to you, getting you to spend more.
2) Dissent will become more difficult. It'll lead to less whistleblowing, less speaking truth to power and less honest discussion of unpopular ideas (because only popular ideas are good, right?).
3) There is the side effect of having less nastiness and vacuous idiocy. But it's not the only side effect. 2) above is also a side effect. However, less nastiness is merely a sales pitch, not a real discussion, as it ignores 2) above.
Follow the money, follow the power considerations. As always.
really, this is old news...or someone is just waking up.
you are very young, aren't you?
I'm depressed that your comment hasn't been marked '+5 Churchillian'.
Because we all know how hard it is to link a fake email to a fake account.... so now we all know who everyone is ! Their logic always seems inherently flawed.
Anonymous comments are essential to provide a view of life's Unpleasant Realities that big media corporations won't admit.
For example, black kids commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
Fat chicks don't need more self-esteem, they need to go on a diet.
It might be about privacy to some, but I was referring to the claim on the front page of Facebook that "It’s free and always will be."
Many now require users to have a Facebook or Google+ account to comment.
Thats fine. I'll just make a FB account appropriately named "Anonymous Coward" and continue to make racist nigger comments on news stories about niggers committing crimes.
which is why i have multiple accounts
Because you sure as hell wouldn't post :
"Fuck Obama, the most unpopular president in the last 200 years!" (oh and he is btw
~ 15% approval right now)
if you knew your employer could find out you did that.
That's why they want to force you to use your real name, it is in order to stifle all
oppositional speech for fear of losing your job and social repercussions.
While you might be comfortable with being on Santa's Naughty-list (powered by NSA)
you will not want to come in the next day and explain to your boss why you think
treasonous Obama and the back-room traitorous scum running his ass should be locked
up forever.
We can gripe where the "magic cutoff is", but both of us are Under -1Mil in our ID, you're ahead of me, I'm guessing July 2002 or something when you joined.
Haha, and you just barely made it! :D
I did once think about a slashdot to usenet interface, back when there was the UI with the floating colored pills.
Maybe when they foist beta on us it'll be time to revisit the idea.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Beta Hath Been Foisted.
You can "visit it" any time you like, thus to ponder your idea above. Go to
http://beta.slashdot.org/
At least twice it has been automatically "foisted" on me.
Down in an obscure place that's hard to see in the footer, there's a link to "Slashdot Classic". Here is the Link Location:
http://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1
Meanwhile on phones, it sends up the Mobile Version, which is also pretty bad. But some sub browsers out there let you fiddle with the agent string to get back to Classic as well. (Though one of them gets chewed up trying to render the whole page.)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Came for shitcocks. Was disappointed.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Downmodding my post with proof of my last posts' veracity (via the source site's own forums engine betraying their bullshit no less as said proof)?
Please... lol!
APK
P.S.=> Whoever the fool is downmodding my post here KNOWS exactly what I stated in my previous post I am responding to IS EXACTLY CORRECT & he's helping me prove that, all the more... apk
I don't consider it fully foisted when there's a workaround. I saw it once but I'm not seeing it now, though I'm damned if I know what I did.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."