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.
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.
That is all.
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.
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
Viva la fascism!
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.
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.
There are already limits anywhere you go, even in places with almost completely anonymous speech (4chan has rules, too, and a moderation team to enforce them). This real name system won't lead to people "watching what they say;" look on Facebook and you'll see that real name tie-ins have very little effectiveness on that. What it will do is lead to a certain set of people choosing not to speak their mind and voice their opinions where there may be real life consequences (which is to say, anything outside cultural norms or anything that goes against the "accepted opinions" of society at large). In the worst case, someone who has something insightful to say about an issue that really needs to be discussed will opt to remain silent when it matters most. I don't think this is where we should be going. I think we as a society should be moving toward a place of more free discussion of ideas and issues, not a less free place. I think there are better solutions out there to deal with individuals who are acting outright malicious that don't stifle intelligent discussion.
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
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]
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 ----