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...
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
Not only that, but it also serves a very valuable purpose: It allows people to have "unpopular" opinions, only to realize that they may be more popular than they thought.
I don't know if anyone here ever played the RPG "Paranoia". It stopped being fun when it became too close to home for comfort. It was a world under total surveillance where mutants and members of secret societies were hunted. The fun part now was that EVERYONE was a mutant and EVERYONE was member of some secret society. And everyone thought they're a tiny minority and everyone else is out there to hunt them down, because that was the generally accepted dogma and everyone was happy when someone else was being hunted because it means that, at least for now, they're not on the hunt list.
Sounds familiar? It should.
What anonymity allows in the context is that you can find out that you're not alone. That you're not the "odd man out" if you don't think the generally accepted dogma and creed is the all encompassing truth but that basically everyone thinks like that. Only the ones that hold power and media do not.
Of course, this is a threat to those that have power and media outlets in their hands. If you can convince everyone that they are alone in their "resistance" against the official opinion, they will conform. If you can threaten them with indirect or direct repercussions if they disagree, they will fall in line, even if they could in theory voice their opinion. Just lock up everyone who dares to speak out and people will think that that guy and they are the only 2 in the world who thought like that.
If people can voice their concern anonymously, they will soon find out that they're not alone. Not by a long shot. Actually, they will find out that the official opinion is backed by nobody but a tiny minority.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
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 ----