Montana Newspaper Plans To Out Anonymous Commenters Retroactively (washingtonpost.com)

HughPickens.com writes: Eugene Volokh reports at the Washington Post that in a stunning policy shift, The Montana Standard, a daily newspaper in Butte, Montana, has decided to replace commenters' pseudonyms with their real names. "The kicker here is that the change is retroactive," writes Paul Alan Levy. "Apparently unwilling to part with the wealth of comments that are already posted on its web site under the old policy, but also, apparently, unwilling to configure its software so that comments posted before the new policy is implemented remain under the chosen screen names, the Standard announces that past comments will suddenly appear using the users' real names unless users contact the paper no later than December 26 to ask that their comments be removed." In a November 12 editorial outlining the new real-name policy, the newspaper said, "We have encountered consistent difficulty with posts that exceed the bounds of civil discourse — as have many sites where comments from anonymous posters are allowed."

The paper's new policy has proven controversial among readers. "This is the end of open and honest comments on this site," wrote one user, who goes by the name BGF. "It is easy to put your name to your comments if you are retired. But it is another thing altogether if you have to worry about upsetting your peers and bosses at work." The newspaper editor, David McCumber, says he has extensively investigated the feasibility of configuring the newspaper's software to keep comments posted before the new policy is implemented under the chosen screen names. He says he was told by his content-management software experts that such a configuration is impossible. "Based on that, I am trying to do what is most equitable to all of our readers," says McCumber. "When a relatively small city is at the center of your market, just about everybody commented about is known, and the anonymous comments sting."

Comments

unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of software are they using? If it is free software then nothing is unpossible. If not then they either need a better vendor or should consider writing up a nice case study for the advantages of closed vendor software products.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[murdocj]

Software is software. If it's possible to do with "free" (open) software, it's possible to do with proprietary. The difference is who you pay to do the work.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[kelemvor4]

Software is software. If it's possible to do with "free" (open) software, it's possible to do with proprietary. The difference is who you pay to do the work.

Many software houses do not offer customer solutions or implement features based on customer feedback. Microsoft is an example of a large firm that does this (despite claims to the contrary). It's entirely possible the vendor writing their comment software is unwilling to comply.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[oakgrove]

A quick look at their source suggests that they are using something called BLOX CMS, and their nameservers are run by TownNews, which is apparently the company behind BLOX.

BLOX is advertised as "Cloud-based" with "No hardware or software to install & maintain".

This all suggests that they actually cannot make such a change, by virtue of using an SaaS solution they have no control over.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

"impossible" here is codeword for "we don't know how to do it so you'd have to fire us and hire better people".

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Flavianoep]

In software nothing is simply impossible. It's only impossible under the given constraints: time, money, hardware, knowledge, intelligence...
One may even doubt if his experts said just "impossible", instead of "impossible on given deadline, or budget or whatever".

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't they just lock every current account forever to make it impossible to post from them, and ask everyone to create a new account with their real name? Internally this solution is not as elegant as what they hoped for I'm sure, but seen from the outside it would be functionally equivalent.

Re: unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there are most definitely things which are impossible to compute. For example, writing a program to determining if an arbitrary program will halt has been known to be impossible for a long time. Furthermore, there are numbers which are impossible to compute given the finite memory of a computer

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

"impossible" here is codeword for "we don't know how to do it so you'd have to fire us and hire better people".

A script to substitute the pseudonym in the field(s) where their real name is stored seems easy enough. This way the pseudonyms for past comments become the real names for those comments. Future comments will be under the submitter's real name once they create a new account and agree to the new policy.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[murdocj]

And it's entirely possible that you won't find someone to modify open source software.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[kelemvor4]

And it's entirely possible that you won't find someone to modify open source software.

I'm not sure if you've looked at job search sites. There are no shortage of programmers available for every language in the US. All you need is one guy who knows the language the OSS was written in and the money to pay him in order to make your desired changes. Even if it's something under draconian management like the Linux kernel, you could always fork it.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

The paper could say they won't commit to the service unless BLOX could make a one time patch to their imported data.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think so, especially if someone at the paper or comment provider took the time to batch change their old "real name" fields in the DB to pseudonyms. Then everyone get's their "real name" shown, except the old ones weren't so real - there is no reason to believe they ever were.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[ceoyoyo]

If you give them enough money, they'll do whatever you want. The question is only of the relative cost. Getting something custom done in open source is sometimes a matter of asking and waiting, or of paying a developer to do it for you. Getting something done in closed source might be a matter of filing a request under your support agreement, or it might mean a very expensive contract.

Re: unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, writing a program to determining if an arbitrary program will halt has been known to be impossible for a long time.

It can be done if you execute it and your machine is finite. You can have a more complex machine that can store every possible state try it for every possible input.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simpler still is to lock their current accounts with the pseudonyms in place, and then make them create a new account with their real 'verified' name in order to continue position

This entire 'technology problem' is nothing more than an exercise in public shaming

And, don't forget that Facebook has been doing the same thing over the course of the past few years

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. We have a software supplier who won't release a new feature that we've requested even though they've coded and tested it unless at least X other customers also request it. I'm guessing they're wanting to avoid bloat.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you never took an automata class.

There are plenty of problems that can not be computed.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[jedidiah]

...yes, but nobody tries to implement those.

We're talking about real tasks here, not parlour tricks.

Re: unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

You can not write a program that will tell you if any ARBITRARY program halts or not.

It has been proven mathematically.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

LAWL

A simple job like this could be posted on fiverr and you would get 100000 bids in five minutes.

Re: unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are trying to avoid the maintenance cost of said feature.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, if they are moving between systems, that means that they are touching their database at some point. They could simply remove the association between the anon users and accounts at the moment that they make the dump for the vendor. We are talking about a single query here.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[AK Marc]

Impossible is always code for "I'm too dumb to do it". I hear impossible all the time. And never once has it been true.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Grishnakh]

If it's possible to do with "free" (open) software, it's possible to do with proprietary.

Absolutely wrong.

If it's proprietary, and you ask the vendor to make a change, and they say "no", then you're out of luck. They have total control over the software, so if they refuse, even with you waving money in front of their noses, there's nothing you can do. Proprietary companies frequently refuse to do custom work or listen to customer feedback, because they're selling to lots of people and don't want to deviate from their corporate direction or invest the resources necessary to please a single customer.

With open-source/Free software, you don't have this problem. You have access to the source code, so worst case, you can hire someone to make custom changes for you. It probably won't be that cheap to get a freelancer or some small software house to do it for you, since they're working with unfamiliar code, but it's better than nothing.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Grishnakh]

Not necessarily. If they've outsourced their website to some other company, they're at the vendor's mercy. So "impossible" is a codeword for "we were too shortsighted to have our own website built, and contracted with some shitty cloud provider, and we just do whatever they want."

Re:unpossible software hack?

[murdocj]

Guess what. With proprietary software, you can pay the owner the software. And I GUARANTEE you, if you pay enough, they'll do it. Which is the same as open source software.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Grishnakh]

Now you're talking about absurd and unaffordable amounts of money. Can you imagine how much money you'd need to pay Microsoft to make a custom version of Windows 10 for you without Metro? It's just not something they want to do. They might not even do it for any amount of money, unless you buy out the company outright, because it goes directly against their corporate vision.

With FOSS, this isn't a problem; there's always someone willing to do the work for you. And you don't have to buy out the original company to get what you want.

Re: unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone knows their real name will be used, then they won't use it when they make a new account.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you work in software at all? Most good OSS is the result of years of work by many individuals. If you run a business and you wanted the linux kernel modified to suit your needs, it's not as simple as: "Find a random C programmer and have it done." The value of the work put into these projects could easily be 10 times the value of that newspaper. If they had to pay someone to write the code it's quite likely they could never afford it. It's also possible they can't afford the modifications. I'm sure that small newspaper would bankrupt themselves before making a usefully different fork of the linux kernel, for instance.

Re: unpossible software hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but that's not the halting problem.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[unimacs]

You mean they made a reasonable decision to pay a whole lot less for software that already exists. Said software has limitations as does all software but there are probably other solutions to this problem that they just aren't willing to pursue for whatever reasons.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Grishnakh]

No, not really. They didn't pay for any software at all; that's the whole problem. They paid for a service. If they paid for some software, they could just stick with what they have instead of pissing off users by divulging their identities when the users had never agreed to that before, at least until they could get the software made so that old comments used the pseudonyms while newer comments switched to the new policy.

Instead, they bought a service which apparently doesn't offer this ability. I don't know if there's a legal case to be made here, but it seems to me that their website had a policy before where people could make posts anonymously (or pseudonymously), and now they're changing to a real-name policy. That would be OK, except they're making it retroactive, which is certainly wrong ethically, and quite possibly legally, depending on the wording of their prior user agreement policy. You can't just go change agreements like that retroactively. And the fact that the SaaS vendor doesn't support this is no excuse. Either they need to switch to a new vendor, get the vendor to change, or eliminate the service (and comment section) altogether.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[unimacs]

No, not really. They didn't pay for any software at all; that's the whole problem. They paid for a service. If they paid for some software, they could just stick with what they have instead of pissing off users by divulging their identities when the users had never agreed to that before, at least until they could get the software made so that old comments used the pseudonyms while newer comments switched to the new policy.

Instead, they bought a service which apparently doesn't offer this ability. I don't know if there's a legal case to be made here, but it seems to me that their website had a policy before where people could make posts anonymously (or pseudonymously), and now they're changing to a real-name policy. That would be OK, except they're making it retroactive, which is certainly wrong ethically, and quite possibly legally, depending on the wording of their prior user agreement policy. You can't just go change agreements like that retroactively. And the fact that the SaaS vendor doesn't support this is no excuse. Either they need to switch to a new vendor, get the vendor to change, or eliminate the service (and comment section) altogether.

Yes, like I said, there are other options that they are not willing to pursue for whatever reasons. That doesn't mean it was a poor decision to go with an SAAS vendor over paying somebody a lot more money to create, test, and maintain a custom solution to a problem that's already been solved. Money that simply may not be there. Print publications aren't exactly a high growth industry.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[unimacs]

I should say that I don't agree with their choice. If the only option is to wipe the old comments then that is what they should do.

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Gazzonyx]

I, too, don't believe much is impossible so far as software is probably the most abstract and malleable construct that Man has devised and created. I say that with a huge caveat though; when someone asks if I can add a feature or write a piece of code my response has always been "with sufficient motivation and time anything is doable". That being said, while I usually _start_ with "yes", many things come down to "I can do this, but it's not worth doing" or "I can do this, but something else is shipping late". That's the nature of the game.

As an example, I tried to explain to someone earlier today why trying to do high end DSP apps for Android phones would take massive resources due to the engineering envelopes that are inherent to the system (high level, JITted language with GC, multiple hardware profiles with a short life span, and the need for low level access on a platform where you're on top of many layers of abstraction makes for a lot of interesting challenges that would devour resources). I'm not saying it can't be done, but I surely wouldn't invest in it.

Re: unpossible software hack?

[orlanz]

The thread isn't about affordability, it's about how you have more options than prop software. Assuming someone will pay for it, most software vendors do not like creating custom versions of software. It sets a bad precedent, complicates SDLC, and sets bad expectations with the customer. The sales guy can say the custom version is "unsupported" but you will end up providing support to maintain customer relations. This is why prop don't customize their offerings per customer.

GNU and BSD software gets customized all the time. Major distributions do it, major customers do it. In fact few people use the vanilla kernels, and software. Most customizations are simple tweaks or integrations with other software or feature addons. The customers understand that this is their version of the software and they can't go running upstream for support. For this reason, this works in GNU and BSD.

Anyway, back to the article, the vendor was probably charging too high of a price to make the feature worth it. The proper decision here was to remove or archive all the old comments prior to the first official announcement.

Re: unpossible software hack?

[VirtualJWN]

Most of the time application modification is not a kernel level endeavour

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Dashiva Dan]

Impossible is always code for "I'm too dumb to do it". I hear impossible all the time. And never once has it been true.

Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:unpossible software hack?

[Dashiva Dan]

It doesn't matter what software is running their system.
They have enough control over it to have pseudonyms replaced with real names. Whoever is doing this change should be able to easily manage this issue through dozens of options, many of which are a single line of code or a single query modification.
It seems clear, for them to have this response that they:
1) Are not doing the updates in-house
2) Forgot to do proper planning didn't address this when requesting the changes
3) (and this is the BS one) Aren't willing to pay the extra $5 it would cost to address the issue (I know, after factoring in meetings, organisation, etc, etc, that's closer to $5000 or possibly $50000, but it's still cheaper than the loss rolling it out as is is likely to cost them)

tldr:
If it's "impossible" to maintain the pre-existing behaviour, then how was it not impossible for them to change it in the first place?

Implying ..

[PPH]

.. that the 'real name' and e-mail addresses submitted were in fact correct.

Re:Implying ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many people signed up using the mayor's name when asked for their "real" name.

yours,
Ivana Trump

Re:Implying ..

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you pay for the newspaper subscription without giving them your real name? Bitcoin?

Re:Implying ..

[fustakrakich]

Prepaid cards don't require ID. Give 'em any name you like, and use a burner email account.

Re: Implying ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I always use my real name, and sign my posts accordingly. I even include my town of residence.

Respectfully, Charles Caroll of Carollton.

Re:Implying ..

[Flavianoep]

Not all commenters are subscribers. I've visited their site and the only restriction to create an account is catcha (unreadable by most robots).

Re:Implying ..

[Anonymous Coward]

".. that the 'real name' and e-mail addresses submitted were in fact correct."

And in fact their own instead of someone else, like say someone they didn't particularly like.

Re:Implying ..

[CCarrot]

.. that the 'real name' and e-mail addresses submitted were in fact correct.

But..but...my name really is Captain Morgan! ...you dare to doubt the Captain?

Re:Implying ..

[Anonymous Coward]

the 'real name' and e-mail addresses submitted were in fact correct.

Why yes, my name in fact is Harry Balls and I live at 69 Reach Around Circle.

Re:Implying ..

[jedidiah]

There is a real Captain Kirk. The only thing keeping him from commanding the next Enterprise is the fact that he isn't an aviator.

Re:Implying ..

[theGhostPony]

Yup. Many of the worst comments (and trolls) can be traced to fake accounts, including the Facebook based comment systems that many newspapers like to use.

Re:Implying ..

[jgdnavy]

Not just a Captain Kirk, but actually Captain James Kirk. He even jokes his middle name is Tiberius.

Re:Implying ..

[uninformedLuddite]

I'm going to have to call demarcation on this. It is my job to tell people to fuck off. It's one of the few useful things I contribute here.

Isn't this why computers are great

[MeNeXT]

this should be as simple as testing comment date if less than transition date then post pseudonyms.

Not sure why some people have computers.

Re:Isn't this why computers are great

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly this is a shot across the bow that's aimed a little too low. Of course they could solve this easily without making the new policy retroactive. They don't want to. Even if they are "forced" to make an about face now, the message is understood: "We know who you are. Be civil or else..."

It's astonishing how many people in journalism don't understand the importance of anonymity. You can have a civil discourse without it, but if you are at all interested in hearing what people really think, there is no substitute.

Re:Isn't this why computers are great

[Anonymous Coward]

right. whoever is telling them this is impossible is a moron.

if (comment_date cutoff_date) {
          print pseudonym
} else {
        print real_name
}

Re:Isn't this why computers are great

[Anonymous Coward]

ha. slashdot doesn't like less than in comments

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though you're joking, you're further normalizing the idea, and thus you can kindly shut the f*** up.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[PopeRatzo]

Anonymity - and the kind of journalism that needed it - are a thing of the past

You think the comments section of a newspaper's website has anything to do with journalism?

Have you ever read comments sections? Put your waders on.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[lgw]

They have everything to due with free expression, which is ultimately the point of journalism. Given your posting history, I suspect you usually agree with the official narrative the papers generally print instead of the truth, and get upset when people point out that it's all BS, so I can understand your emotional response here. But you should still support free expression, even when you disagree with it.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[PopeRatzo]

They have everything to due with free expression, which is ultimately the point of journalism.

Please find me a definition of "journalism" that includes free expression for people who have absolutely nothing to do with journalism.

Using the N-word in a comments section, doesn't make you a journalist. Calling Obama a "muslin" in a comments section doesn't make you a journalist.

Full Definition of JOURNALISM

1
a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
b : the public press
c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2
a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine
b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[Linkreincarnate]

Yup it does. The comments section is where a story can be refuted or additional information that was left out can be found and even have a remote chance of being seen by someone who just read the article.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[Anonymous Coward]

They have everything to due with free expression, which is ultimately the point of journalism.

Please find me a definition of "journalism" that includes free expression for people who have absolutely nothing to do with journalism.

Using the N-word in a comments section, doesn't make you a journalist. Calling Obama a "muslin" in a comments section doesn't make you a journalist.

Full Definition of JOURNALISM

1
a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
b : the public press
c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2
a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine
b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

I'm guessing that the definition for a certain organisation or countries dictionary & suspect it varies. Also as English isn't French and your definition seems out of date in 2 (a) as to not mentioning online publications which I, and I expect most people, would include now.
1(a) & 1 (b) fit & 2 (a) would fit if you where to include online publication. 2(b) & (c) could also fit on some comments, although I think 2(b) is a bit bollocks as you have to interpret or you'd have to give someone the same sensation you had that led you to believe something.

Whether some one would count all comments as journalism or not I think some definitely could be and it may be the most worthwhile that are harmed disproportionately as compared to the general.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[PopeRatzo]

Yup it does. The comments section is where a story can be refuted or additional information that was left out can be found and even have a remote chance of being seen by someone who just read the article.

You can refute stories and add information all you want, on your own platform. Journalists do not owe you a comments section and it's not "censorship" if they decide not to have a comments section.

I mean, where do you get this stuff? Do you think journalism didn't exist before there were online comments sections?

Re:Isn't this why computers are great

[thegarbz]

The technical sides are always simple.

Now legal, contractual, support, managerial and vendor issues on the other hand could take years to sort out.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[Dread_ed]

Journalism, as originally implemented in this country, and listed in this definition "writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation" no longer exists. The opposite is taught in universities, reinforced through advertising revenues and page hit models, and is all but required by the manages and execs in our media outlets.

So, journalism did exist before there were online comments sections. It just doesn't anymore.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[PopeRatzo]

So, journalism did exist before there were online comments sections. It just doesn't anymore.

Of course it does. You just have to look for it. And don't expect to see comments sections when you do find it.

If you're looking for journalism in mass media, you're right. It doesn't exist any more.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[Anonymous Coward]

People have been 'Newspeak-ed' into believing that Fox News commentary is journalism, from that point it is a short step to believing that the comments section is Journalism as well

Re:Isn't this why computers are great

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it does <

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[lgw]

"Journalism" isn't "what reporters do", but narration of the "facts on the ground". Facts in quotes, since shortly after an event, when the news is hot, we rarely know the truth of anything. (Heck, is Obama a Muslim? I think he's more of a Muslim than Bill Clinton was a Christian: that's a religious group he wouldn't mind political support from, isn't going to actively antagonize, and will occasionally give a nod to in a speech.)

Comments sections often call out mistakes in reporting (and it's basically all mistakes, as you'll know if you've ever been involved in something reported, or especially if you've been interviewed), or add details or contrary points of view. That's journalism.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[PopeRatzo]

Comments sections often call out mistakes in reporting

Citation?

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[jedidiah]

I would never trust a "journalist" that isn't willing to open themselves up to public feedback. That is likely a sure sign that you are dealing with someone with an agenda who doesn't want inconvenient facts to interfere with their chosen narrative. They probably don't even acknowledge the autonomy of their own staff.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[lgw]

Citation?

Exactly!

OK, sometimes you have to go to blogs related to the news to find the commenters pointing out that the story lacked even the basic fact-checking of Google and Wikipedia, but I've seen the same on the story itself

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[epyT-R]

If the paper's content was journalism, most people wouldn't bother commenting. The problem is that most 'journalism' today is yellow at best. Nothing incites commentary like propagandists pretending to be journalists.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[sumdumass]

Ehh.. fox news commentary is just a symptom. I've seen people quoting or citing op-ed pieces as sources before fox news was even heard of. It may be why fox news was and is so successful but it was happening long before in irc, news lists, and bbs postings.

Re:Isn't this why computers are great

[sumdumass]

Even if that is somehow technically impossible to implement, I'm not sure why archiving the post pre cutoff date wouldn't work. Its what happens here essentially when commenting becomes disabled due to the age of the story.

Or am i missing something?

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[epyT-R]

'The point' has nothing to do with journalism at all. It has to do with the internet providing a place where people can discuss what was said by journalists. This used to be celebrated as a new form of free expression. Now, the trend is to silence criticism of narratives. This is not good.

The papers can do what they like of course but that doesn't mean their newfound intolerance of criticism is a good thing for free society. A free, objective press is critical to its health.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[PopeRatzo]

I would never trust a "journalist" that isn't willing to open themselves up to public feedback.

I understand that. But does it mean that it is the obligation of the journalist to provide and maintain a forum for instant feedback at his own expense? And further, to do so with protection of anonymity?

Technology has given us limitless avenues for speech. Anyone can put up a website, submit a story, be a source. You can feed back to your heart's content. A guarantee of free speech is not the same as a guarantee to be heard by everyone. If it were, I'd have my own cable news network (where everyone would have Scottish accents, by the way, because I find them amusing). Instead, I've got fooking nowt, innit?

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who in the past frequently pointed out logical fallacies and outright, objectively verifiable lies in various articles in their respective comment section on a major newspaper (not the one in the article), I can tell you that probably isn't possible. Why? Because they have all been purged as "offensive" or some bullshit like that. Journalism is dead, "reporters" have taken the place of journalist, and are all busy spreading the "facts" as their masters want them to tell them. They don't want anyone with the ability to add two and two, or even a semi-working brain scrutinizing them and have a convenient spot near the "article" to vent their findings. That's the main thing behind the removal of comments all over the media, the idiots sprouting off are just a nice excuse.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[PopeRatzo]

It has to do with the internet providing a place where people can discuss what was said by journalists.

You mean like this one? In case you haven't noticed, there is an endless number of places where people can discuss what is said by journalists. It doesn't mean the journalists have to provide one.

The papers can do what they like of course but that doesn't mean their newfound intolerance of criticism is a good thing for free society.

And yet, here you are criticizing the fact that there is intolerance of criticism. You don't see the wee flaw in your argument?

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalism is nothing more than propaganda used to support an agenda. You're familiar with that Ratzo; you practice it incessantly.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[PopeRatzo]

You're familiar with that Ratzo; you practice it incessantly

Yer oan a burst mooth, ya lying fooking buftie cunt.

Re:Isn't this why computers are great

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course they could solve this easily without making the new policy retroactive."

Lets face it, it is much easier and cheaper to just switch the code from $nickname to $fullname in the comment section of the programming. Pure and simple, they just don't care.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[epyT-R]

No they don't have to. It's just better for society if they do. The fact that many so-called journalists and their employers no longer want to speaks volumes.

Yes. The flaw is you cannot tell the difference between stating what is true, and what should happen.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[Mashiki]

Citation?

Common knowledge, it doesn't require a citation. Want a recent pop culture example? The Zoe Post, and examine the media's stories on it. In nearly every case, the stories are factually wrong, even though the story will cite(the zoe post) and make incorrect statements and claim they're factual.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[PopeRatzo]

No they don't have to. It's just better for society if they do.

I wonder how the Founding Fathers managed, since their books, pamphlets, newspapers didn't have comments sections.

I'm still waiting for a single citation of a comments section that has been "good for society". Some bit of evidence that it does something besides play into people's confirmation bias.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[epyT-R]

And don't expect to see comments sections when you do find it.

Why's that? Does your personal definition of journalist require that he believe himself the final arbiter on truth? There's a difference between due diligence and belief. Allowing comments shows readers conviction that due diligence was done as well as a willingness to accept constructive criticism. Those who can't handle this are often those who don't like having their beliefs challenged. These people make better propagandists than journalists.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[PopeRatzo]

Why's that? Does your personal definition of journalist require that he believe himself the final arbiter on truth?

Does your personal definition of constructive criticism mean you get to do it on somebody else's dime?

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[PopeRatzo]

Want a recent pop culture example? The Zoe Post

Give links, man. Let everybody see what you're talking about so they can understand your commitment to ethics in journalism.

Common knowledge, it doesn't require a citation.

Common knowledge is quite uncommon.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[Mashiki]

Give links, man. Let everybody see what you're talking about so they can understand your commitment to ethics in journalism.

The zoe post vs what the media reports.

Common knowledge is quite uncommon.

Really? You should let the courts know asap. My theory that the sky is actually puce in colour should go over well then.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[Type44Q]

On rare occasions, you have something insightful to offer. However, you're going out of your way in an obvious attempt to demonstrate that this isn't one of these times. I find that mildly interesting...

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[Reziac]

Despite the consummate irony, for once I agree with you.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great

[SirLordGodfrey]

It certainly sucks when comments sections are able to easily contradict the clickbait article and undermine the modicum of reputability the author had.

Here come the lawsuits...

[Zontar The Mindless]

And with a paper that size, it'll only take one or two of them succeeding to replace it with a smoking crater.

I'll go start the popcorn--BRB.

Re: Here come the lawsuits...

[Anonymous Coward]

Butte already has a giant crater. OK, technically it is an open pit mine, but close enough! It even has an acid pit.

Why is this a problem?

[frovingslosh]

So some people signed up to use the paper's website but gave their real names even though they posted under a pseudonym. Didn't the people who gave their real names create the problem in the first place? Sure, the paper is wrong in doing this, and some crackpots who took offense ar something said are likely to kill some people. But in the end this will serve as a good lesson to the survivors to not give your real name on-line when there is no good reason to do so.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it further

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes you want to act under your legal name online. It is increasingly difficult to separate this from pseudonymous activities. The commenters were told they had to register under their legal names. They might have thought using a pseudonym would be illegal. They were also acting under an expectation of privacy. Of course it's naive to expect from a website to keep any information you tell them hidden. But when you're being doxxed not all the blame is on you.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe people should use their real name. You know, instead of posting as AC's. Just sayin'

Fear can be a useful thing in keeping people in line with good morals. If someone comes along and can remain anonymous and incite rage, hatred, vitriol, or "trolling", and get away with it... that's pretty fucked up.

Nobody should be so protected that they can say shit to piss people off, be racists, vulgar, etc. You got something to say? Then say it outright with your name attached, or get a better motive that isn't morally corrupt.

I'm sure most people online won't agree, because they love to think that it's better to wear a guy faux mask and get away with it. It's not. It breeds sick intentions, and ruins society.

(Posted as AC because of the irony.)

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

If facebook comment threads are anything to go by, having your real name attached to your commets does in no way shy people away from posting rude, offensive, argumentative, and generally dumb comments.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, they aren't wrong. If people have an opinion about stuff they should have the gonads to stand up for them. Don't make statements if you don't like the consequences.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

And just who is the "decider" of what is moral and what is not? Who watches the watchers?

Re: Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't ruin society. Being anonymous in fact created this society. Before the founders put their names proudly on the Declaration of Independence they already had the backing of a decent enough amount of people that they figured they could get away with what was in fact high treason. They got that backing by writing and printing anonymously first.

The Boston Tea Party members remained anonymous until the last one died. Despite what the history books gloss over, it was a big anti corporate welfare protest In this case, about a tax break given to the British East India Company that let them undercut local merchants. Sound like today maybe? We don't tell that story accurately in schools because it might give people ideas. Most people think it was a protest about Parliament taxing tea at all, which it was most certainly not.

Those things wouldn't have been possible without anonymity. That's why Facebook et al wage war on it--to keep things 'civil'. Screw that. Society should be noisy with voices to be heard. Posting under real names that are indexed and searchable can cause all kinds of unintended consequences for the poster, even with posts that aren't controversial. It's not worth it, and so the only real name posters end up being people with nothing to lose or people who lie about their identity.

I'm really sorry for you if you can't handle racist or sexist or whatever posts. They're words. Get over it. Respond or ignore. I'm tired of 'safe places'. This is not a world for people who are that weak.

Re: Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of fact SPARTA wants your name, so that they can crack down on you. So do their big business friends.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[93 Escort Wagon]

My former newspaper's former comment system was (loosely) tied to your actual newspaper subscription - it's possible that's the case here as well.

As an aside - the reason the Tacoma News Tribune is my "former" newspaper is actually slightly related to this topic. They also had a perceived issue with online commenters behaving badly. Their solution was to move to a comment system that requires Facebook authentication. At that point I'd been a print subscriber for over 20 years, but I ended my subscription. Ahead of the switchover, I had an email exchange with Karen Petersen, who runs the paper. I told her companies like Facebook were exactly what newspapers needed to keep an eye on, and that there were plenty of other discussion board products (e.g. Disqus) that would accomplish what she felt needed to be done. It was pretty obvious she was just parroting back some sales pitch someone had given her when she replied ("we need to require real names to prevent abuse, and Facebook will accomplish that") - it wasn't surprising, but it was disappointing.

It was probably for the best anyway. They were already becoming less and less of a real newspaper, filling more and more space with entertainment twaddle, and, even when they did cover actual news, the stories kept getting shorter and were mostly devoid of real content. It was pretty obvious they weren't thinking about what their remaining subscribers wanted - they were following some consultant's advice about "attracting the kids" or whatnot.

Re: Why is this a problem?

[MarkvW]

Stand up and stand out.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[vilanye]

How would anyone think that signing up to comment on a website with a fake name is illegal? It is not like they were trying to sign up for a credit card or something that could trigger fraud.

If they used their real name, well they needed the lesson.

Re: Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or under any other oppressive regimme "stand up and get shot."

Re: Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

people who lie about their identity

I really feel sorry for that Anonymous Coward guy.

Re: Why is this a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm tired of 'safe places'."

Posted anonymously - why isn't this modded as "funny"?

Betrayal

[Anonymous Coward]

Your readers posted comments with the expectation of anonymity. Why should they ever trust you again? This is less desirable than simply deleting all existing comments.

Also, I don't know the specifics of this content management software, but your expert is most certainly wrong.

Re:Betrayal

[JaredOfEuropa]

Is it even legal? Not sure how this works in the US, but over here, information can not be shared with 3rd parties without prior consent, and can not be used for anything other than the purpose (as stated in the terms & conditions) for which is was collected. In this case, unless the newspaper's explicitly states that your real name may be published at a later date, they are in violation. And if they required a real name but offered the use of pseudonyms, a judge might well argue that this implicitly denies permission to publish the real name.

Re:Betrayal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably in the TOS. "We can do whatever the hell we like with your submitted data. Don't submit it if you don't want us doing things to improve your life (namely, things like giving the information to stalkers, law enforcement, tracking services, and ad companies)"

They probably word it a bit more friendly.

Re:Betrayal

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, in the US, we don't really do consumer protection laws anymore. Ever notice how ever fridge has a 1 year warranty? Ever heard of a fitness for a particular purpose? Yeah, neither have most Americans, apparently. I digress.

We have no such laws. Once you give a third party your information, with a few exceptions like doctors, they own that data, not you.

Re:Betrayal

[anti-disney]

I think a lot of companies have a clause in their terms of service saying that these terms can change at any time which should be illegal in my opinion. In addition a lot of the terms of service don't specifically say that your real name won't remain anonymous meaning they can decide to post your real name at any time. Even if it specifically stated that names won't be published, someone like Facebook can come along and either buy their company or take over the comment board and decide that for "civil" dialog, they will publish real names. This only destroys comment boards since people lose trust in the newspaper and people are unwilling to post under their real name even if the comment isn't "uncivil" since they don't want a friend, prospective employer, or company to see their post. For example, someone could criticize a company and be concerned the company will try to sue them for making a negative comment about their company in a news story. Others will simply use fake names since it doesn't take much to create a fake email account. People who comment should have a reasonable expectation of privacy and shouldn't have to contact the newspaper to have their comments removed if they don't want their names to appear in past comments.

This is *SO* unethical !

[BarbaraHudson]

They are breaking the terms under which posters made their previous posts. So much for ethics. While some of us don't mind using our real names, if the site allowed nyms in the past, they should at least honour that. Who do they think they are to say, in effect "I have changed the terms of the contract. Pray I don't change it again," because now they've shown that their agreements are not really agreements.

And just how are they going to check that people's names are their real names? "Oh, this doesn't sound like a real name ...?" Or people who had good reason to post anonymously to avoid being sued in retaliation for whistle-blowing? Or being outed as gay, lesbian, trans? Or a Ben Carson supporter? Or, with the current wave of Islamophobia, a Muslim? Hope their reporters complain that their "off-the-record" sources have dried up and fix this.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[Jhon]

"They are breaking the terms under which posters made their previous posts."

Did you read the terms? I didn't -- never signed up for that site. I have ready many terms of sites I have signed up for and virtually all of those include some line where they can change the terms in the future. Not saying they had that -- but you are talking as if you read the terms and know exactly what it says and are full of righteous indignation.

If you haven't read the terms, then you are full of something other than righteous indignation. I leave exactly what that is up to the reader's imagination.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[gstoddart]

Who do they think they are to say, in effect "I have changed the terms of the contract. Pray I don't change it again," because now they've shown that their agreements are not really agreements.

Sadly, EULAs and the like tell them they can do this. Courts have upheld it. Which means taking them at their word is pretty much useless.

I don't disagree with you, but corporations who wish to make money off your personal information, they don't give a crap about your privacy or any fallout to you.

Real names policies exist because companies say "what value can I get from selling the fact that SuitWrinkler53 commented on the website?" and deciding that they can't sell that information.

They claim it's so they can police the content and keep things civil. But those comments add value to those sites, which is why they want to keep them.

But never ever assume you can or should trust a website with this information. Unless you're doing a transaction in which they need a billing address, giving random websites your actual information pretty much guarantees your information will be sold, collated, analyzed, and used for marketing purposes.

It is not that I am âoeunwilling to configure our software so that comments posted before the new policy is implemented remain under chosen screen names.â I extensively investigated that possibility and was unfortunately told by our content-management software experts that such a configuration is impossible.

And then you realize they don't know much about the underlying technology, and are probably using something like WordPress.

You can trust a corporation to do one thing: look out for their interests. And you can safely assume they don't give a crap about your interests, which means the more you stop giving websites your real information the less they have it.

If I was faced with a website which wanted my real information, I would choose not to use it. Because I don't give a crap what most websites think, and I don't give a damn why they feel entitled to that information.

When I walk into your store, if you asked me for my real name and address, I'd tell you to fuck off. Why on earth would I give this to you when I visit your website?

The problem is people keep pretending like the internet is trustworthy, or that those agreements are binding or permanent. They just have to remind you it's technically private property, and that the license says they can change the terms if they wish.

Oh, and don't forget that the comments are probably managed by a 3rd party, who has their own license, and doesn't give a crap what you think about it.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[Calydor]

Most EULAs have a clause stating that they can change the terms in the future; most don't say that these changes will be retro-active.

Imagine if contracts worked like this (hint, EULAs are generally treated like contracts). After years of paying, say, ten dollars a month the contract gets changed retro-actively to 100 dollars a month, and you're stuck owing thousands of dollars.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[fustakrakich]

Ethics, schmethics! The lesson to learn is to never give out your real name, use prepaid cards and throw-away email, and if they snoop your IP, use a proxy.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[ScentCone]

Sadly, EULAs and the like tell them they can do this. Courts have upheld it. Which means taking them at their word is pretty much useless.

What? If the user who wants to participate in online discussions on a private company's web site agrees to a EULA that states that the owner of the web site reserves the right to change the conditions of using the site, then that's exactly what you signed up for. The only "sadly" involved is users sadly not reading what they agree to. Most people in the gimme-dat-free-stuff mindset don't think things through anyway.

Real names policies exist because companies say "what value can I get from selling the fact that SuitWrinkler53 commented on the website?" and deciding that they can't sell that information.

Or, if you're a publisher, those policies exist in order to spare the publishers huge ongoing legal expenses in dealing with inquiries and even subpoenas related to digging out real names or other information about trolling, libelous, or otherwise criminal users.

And then you realize they don't know much about the underlying technology, and are probably using something like WordPress.

No, then we realize that you're talking out of your ass and haven't bothered to so much as view the source on one of their pages in order to see that you're wrong. And that the paper - like so many who can't afford to go about it in any other way - are using a third party SaaS solution. Which means a single code base for many clients, which means no, customizing it for one customer isn't always desirable or even do-able.

They just have to remind you it's technically private property, and that the license says they can change the terms if they wish.

Oh, so you DO get it. What are you bitching about, then?

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[Jhon]

"most don't say that these changes will be retro-active." Actually, they do. Kind of. They use terms like

Such updates, revisions, supplements, modifications, and additional rules, policies, terms, and conditions (collectively referred to in this Agreement as "Additional Terms") will be effective immediately and incorporated into this Agreement.

"Imagine if contracts worked like this (hint, EULAs are generally treated like contracts). After years of paying, say, ten dollars a month the contract gets changed retro-actively to 100 dollars a month, and you're stuck owing thousands of dollars."

That part gets a lot more tricky and cant really work the way you suggest it might.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[BarbaraHudson]

"They are breaking the terms under which posters made their previous posts."

Did you read the terms? I didn't -- never signed up for that site. I have ready many terms of sites I have signed up for and virtually all of those include some line where they can change the terms in the future. Not saying they had that -- but you are talking as if you read the terms and know exactly what it says and are full of righteous indignation.

If you haven't read the terms, then you are full of something other than righteous indignation. I leave exactly what that is up to the reader's imagination.

They themselves are admitting that the previous terms allowed anonymous posting, and that this change will be made retroactively unless you tell them by the day after Christmas to delete all your comments. Or did you not even read the summary???

If anything, they should make the default, if any, be to remove all anonymous comments unless you give them permission to show your real name. Even though even that is stupider than just enacting the new policy going forward, and leaving comments posted under the previous policy the way they were.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[BarbaraHudson]

There's a HUGE difference between "these changes will be effective immediately" and "these changes will be effective retroactively."

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[BarbaraHudson]

Ethics, schmethics! The lesson to learn is to never give out your real name, use prepaid cards and throw-away email, and if they snoop your IP, use a proxy.

Sure, but some of us would rather give them the opportunity to do something dickish and then hold their feet to the fire - otherwise, it will just continue and eventually become "best practices" and "industry standard" :-)

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[gstoddart]

The only "sadly" involved is users sadly not reading what they agree to.

In general I disagree with the premise of contracts which one side can change unilaterally ... but I acknowledge it exists, which was what I was saying.

Oh, so you DO get it. What are you bitching about, then?

Maybe you should read my fucking post and the person I was responding to?

I'm not defending it. I'm saying it exists, it's widespread, and at the end of the day short of not participating in it, or giving them false information ... there's not a hell of a lot you can do about.

WTF are YOU bitching about?

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[fustakrakich]

Sure, but some of us would rather give them the opportunity to do something dickish and then hold their feet to the fire

I can assure you it is not working out that way. There is no fire.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[ceoyoyo]

Clauses in legally binding agreements that grant one party the ability to unilaterally change the terms of those agreements are illegal in most places where the rule of law has any meaning. That's one of the reasons almost every contractual agreement, of which EULAs are one kind, have a clause that says if any of the terms are illegal they are void.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[kheldan]

Legal or not, this is an asshole move by that newspaper, and I hope a bunch of people take them to court over it. The guy talks about how it's a small town. Did they even consider for a moment how many people's lives they could be ruining by doing this? I haven't seen the 'uncivil' comments he's talking about, but I've sure as hell seen enough 'uncivil' discourse on the Internet over the last 10 years to last me several lifetimes, and I hate the way people act when they can be completely anonymous in that way, but I also acknoweldge that the ability to be so completely anonymous that is unique to the Internet is also a very powerful tool for Freedom Of Speech in countries that value it, and also especially for people who live in countries where there is no freedom of speech -- and that with that unique power comes a whole unique class of abuse of that power to be completely anonymous; we have to take the bad with the good (unfortunately!) in order to have this uniquely powerful ability. But this newspaper is uniquely violating that. I want to use the word 'un-American' here to describe it.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[ranton]

There's a HUGE difference between "these changes will be effective immediately" and "these changes will be effective retroactively."

I don't see anything being done retroactively. They are merely changing the code for displaying user names going forward. Without a time machine they cannot retroactively change the HTML generated in the past. But effective immediately, the database field user names will be pulled from for display purposed will change from User.Alias to User.FullName. Nothing retroactive about it, from a legal stance that it (although IANAL). From a moral stance, it is more murky.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[Fnord666]

Sadly, EULAs and the like tell them they can do this. Courts have upheld it. Which means taking them at their word is pretty much useless.

Citation please or I call BS.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[BarbaraHudson]

There's a HUGE difference between "these changes will be effective immediately" and "these changes will be effective retroactively."

I don't see anything being done retroactively. They are merely changing the code for displaying user names going forward. Without a time machine they cannot retroactively change the HTML generated in the past. But effective immediately, the database field user names will be pulled from for display purposed will change from User.Alias to User.FullName. Nothing retroactive about it, from a legal stance that it (although IANAL). From a moral stance, it is more murky.

Modern content management systems store comments, etc, in a database and dynamically change the page as the data changes. Example - change your sig, and then go look at your old posts - they will all have the new sig.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the WordPress hate? You can do this easily in wordpress; even if you couldn't, it is pretty trivial to write a plugin that would.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do they think they are to say, in effect "I have changed the terms of the contract. Pray I don't change it again," because now they've shown that their agreements are not really agreements.

Sadly, EULAs and the like tell them they can do this. Courts have upheld it. Which means taking them at their word is pretty much useless.

They think they are living in a country where unethical practice of law riddles the legal system, and where, as a result, contract law supersedes the highest law in the land, the Bill of Rights.

They're correct.

There will always be those who are dumb enough to suppose that if something is in a contract, it must be ok. Not true.

The US legal profession has a massive ethical conflict of interest with respect to deciding what can legitimately be put into a contract. Writing contracts is their bread-and-butter; the more they can put into them, and more complex they can make them, the more demand for their services over the long term.

This has led to judges upholding all manner of abusive contract-related issues (which one can read about by searching Slashdot archives).

It's also led to businesses thinking they can away with all manner of unprincipled, unethical, and illegal stuff, under the shield of contract law (much as Microsoft is currently doing with Windows 10).

Abuse of contracts is routine.

This is likely in problem in every civilized nation, but it's especially a problem in the USA, which has an open-ended Bill of Rights as the highest law in the land, with rights retained by or reserved to the people superseding all authority of government. This is a situation that intrinsically poses significant problems in determining the scope of contract law, thus creating a greater ethics burden on the legal profession than would otherwise be the case.

The right to ethical practice of law is certainly one of the most fundamental rights arising under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people), and the 10th Amendment (rights reserved to the people). As a consequence of this right, even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when reasonable alternatives exist. It follows that all manner of things being done under the shelter of contract law (whether by businesses, or by lawyers, or both) are actually illegal.

But so long as the public doesn't wake up and realize what is going on, the US legal profession, and those who hire their services, will continue to get away with all manner of things that are illegal and that they shouldn't be doing. The legal profession has gotten in the lucrative habit of ignoring the Bill of Rights in a vast array of situations (this, also, one can read about in many Slashdot discussions - since ethics problems permeate every major area of US law, it's an easy search), and that is proving a very difficult habit to break.

Referring to the USA as the "Land of the Lawsuit" is a massive understatement of the real problem, and hence quite misleading.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[Anonymous Coward]

Take them to court over what, exactly? What law has been broken here? What civil infraction are they guilty of that gives them standing in court? Courts don't work like you seem to think they do. You can't sue someone (successfully) for being a poopy-head.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[kheldan]

You can't sue someone (successfully) for being a poopy-head.

Sure you can, dickhead. They're going to ruin people's lives. That's worth something in civil court. Now fuck off.

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - courts have ruled that 'shrinkwrap' agreements are not legally binding
2 - in some states, even making contract claims that require people to give up their rights is a felony (eg Nevada) due to past cohersion
3 - I would join a class action lawsuit
4 - I would reverse charges on my subscription and advertising
5 - I would join a boycott
6 - I would join lawsuits for reclaimed damage for anyone that faces workplace discrimination or loss of business due to their violation of privacy

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see any reference to a single law mentioned in your post. There is no "ruin people's lives" law - even if you want there to be. Your vulgarity is amusing. I suppose you'll be wanting to sue me next for calling you out on your ignorance or the law?

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't provide a reference. Some people can't tell the difference between "some EULA clauses have been upheld in some courts" and "all EULA clauses have been upheld in all courts".

I would anticipate any complex contract or EULA to have clauses that are upheld, some that are ignored and some that are severly rebuked. Which are which? Become a lawyer and guess or take that shit to court and find out for sure!

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[DamonHD]

I disagree.

I think that the whole blowing out of the water of the "Safe Harbour" for processing EU personal data is some of that "fire" arising from an apparent complete disregard for data privacy in the US.

Using personal data in the EU for a purpose other than originally stated/agreed would be illegal (unless possibly if the EULA explicitly said "we can do what we like with your personal data" though I suspect that such carte blanche would be ineffective in law: I refuse to agree to such contracts anyway).

So, if non-EU orgs continue to treat their users' privacy with contempt there were be costs to them and their peers, locally in the courts or internationally in lost business for example. Maybe not hot enough a "fire" to get the message across quickly, but there regardless.

Rgds

Damon

Re: This is *SO* unethical !

[Type44Q]

Ratzo, how many /. user accounts do you have, anyway?

Re:This is *SO* unethical !

[Reziac]

Butte is a union town where the union's demands killed the economy. There's probably more to this than meets the eye... I haven't kept track of Butte politics in a long time, but would guess there's been anonymous pressure in directions that didn't suit whatever's left of TPTB.

But yeah, it does break the implied contract with existing commenters, and which of my real names would you prefer?? there's no law that I have to use the one on my birth certificate; so long as I have no intent to defraud I can call myself anything I like. I'd suggest a spate of posts by ... oh, say, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

The excuse given doesn't reflect reality.

[BarbaraHudson]

"In a November 12 editorial outlining the new real-name policy, the newspaper said, "We have encountered consistent difficulty with posts that exceed the bounds of civil discourse — as have many sites where comments from anonymous posters are allowed."

Like the "real names" policy of facebook ever forced people into only engaging in civil discourse ... you're a newspaper - couldn't you at least do a BIT of research on how this has not worked in the past?

Someone doesn't know how the Internet works ...

A Better Way

[jmcharry]

They would be on much firmer ground to invite an opt in and delete all pseudonymous comments from those who don't.

Re:A Better Way

[Anonymous Coward]

A better way would simply be to delete all current comments posted anonymously under the old policy and start anew.

End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[SirDrinksAlot]

I'm pretty sure I can post open and honest comments while not being anonymous. Unless you define open and honest as the requirement of being allowed to devolve into a stream of profanity and hate at even the smallest amount of disagreement.

Penny Arcade put it best.
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad
http://www.penny-arcade.com/co...

I think this is pretty interesting. Out in society where someone has a face and a name where people behave as if their actions will affect them, but they feel as if online anonymity is a right for them to leverage for their otherwise hidden secret feelings that would normally ruin their reputation. Oh no somebody says something in public that's hateful or otherwise resentful and chastise them for their opinion, but it's totally ok for them and those who crucify them to do it anonymously online.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for anonymous communication but we should be using it as a tool and not a weapon. Unfortunately it's far far far too commonly used as a weapon and that's what drove the newspaper and others to eliminate it. Though retroactively removing the anonymity I don't agree with, it's basically exposing to the world into the deep dark sides people don't want to share. Now you know your neighbor is a homophobe and your kids teacher is a racist, and your wife is actually a generally terrible person. The internet has lots of places you can go be a total pile of crap anonymously, there's no need to do it as publicly as possible via comments to your local news paper.

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[Mr. Slippery]

I'm pretty sure I can post open and honest comments while not being anonymous.

If you're white, middle-class, cisgendered, belong to a mainstream religion, have political views within the mainstream, and live in a cosmopolitan community, yes.

If you're a closeted gay atheist anarcho-communist in a small town in "flyover country", maybe not so much.

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did it take you so many words to express a sentiment that could be summed up in one sentence? "I welcome anything that takes away anonymity and freedom because someone said bad words to me on the internet." It's like calling to ban kitchen knives because someone could stab you with one.

It's also hilarious, by the way, because you posted this bullshit anonymously, too. (Unless your name is SirDrinksAlot.) Nice going about proving the GIFW Theory right. You even managed to stuff racism into the debate... and of course, the obligatory "Yeah, I'm all for X but I think it should be banned and removed everywhere". Great job!

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[Jason Levine]

I don't think it's the anonymity that brings out the worst in people, but the separation of comment and audience. As I sit here typing this, my "audience" is a bunch of pixels on the screen. It's all too easy to remember that there's an actual human on the other side of those pixels. Most people wouldn't say horribly offensive stuff to a person's face for various reasons ranging from it's rude to they don't want to be fired to they don't want to get punched in the face. Online communications take away many of those societal pressures to stay polite which leads some people to act as though the people they are communicating with don't deserve basic human respect.

This isn't to say that using real names wouldn't keep some people civil - it might for some people - but the vast majority of online idiots will continue to be idiots whether they post as a pseudonym or their real names.

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[SuricouRaven]

Open and honest can be a problem. For example, I used to work as tech support in a Catholic school. Not super-devout catholic, but we had a chapel and occasionally a bishop would visit for a guest sermon. I happen to think the church is composed of sex-hating prudes who'll shelter child molesters to protect their claim to moral perfection and happily watch people die of preventable disease rather than permit the use of condoms. But at the time, I couldn't have said that under my real name - because if my employer had found out, I may well have lost the job.

Speaking under your real name is not always good for one's career, or relations with one's family.

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[aaarrrgggh]

Persecuted individuals are one class, as are people who shouldn't speak on a topic because it might include privileged or sensitive information where context of a real name would cause problems. Even on /., I find myself self-censoring posts because it wouldn't be that hard for someone to figure out who exactly I am, even without /.'s complicity.

Posting to fix fat finger mod.

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who pray to the god of mammon, the god of sodom and that of gomorreah are actually offended to see there are other opinions. They are only "liberal" as far as the rights of their gods are concerned. Do not even think of considering other gods, such as the god of "my people".

That is why FB et al demand your telephone number, so that they can rat you out to the god of mammon.

Finally, SPARTA has by now teamed up with mammon, whatever they say.

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[vakuona]

Tell that to Brendan Eich.

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[NormalVisual]

Speaking under your real name is not always good for one's career, or relations with one's family.

Or for your personal safety or liberty, if you happen to be critical of the mayor or other official with some degree of power. It takes just a phone call to the local chief of police to make your life a mess.

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[AthanasiusKircher]

I don't think it's the anonymity that brings out the worst in people, but the separation of comment and audience.

THIS. My standard example is to observe how people behave in cars when stuck in traffic, compared to how they would behave if just walking down the street. Even that little bit of separation causes all sorts of madness and "road rage" that generally doesn't happen when people are in contact directly.

Would you randomly start screaming at someone if they were walking a little too slow in front of you? Most people wouldn't. But a lot more people will lay on their horn and hold it for five seconds or more (not a polite short "tap" on the horn to get someone's attention) and/or roll down the window and start ranting, gesturing wildly, etc.

If you were instead walking behind someone on the sidewalk, you'd likely ask politely to get around someone. Or, if you instead were just grumbling behind them, they'd likely hear it and move out of the way or say "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you needed to get by..." or whatever. Communication can happen, because you see the person's face and demeanor -- maybe they're elderly or lost or whatever.

But when you're separated in two cars, communication is less likely. Rage develops because you get stuck "in your own head" ranting and working yourself up, rather than communicating and sorting out the issue with another person directly.

This kind of build-up of emotions and loss of civility happens exactly the same way with the disconnect on the internet. The automatic assumption many people have is that others are idiots, jerks, shills, etc., because frustration builds up -- particularly if written communication fails in successive posts... just like the guy holding down the carhorn and making obscene gestures which he might never do to someone's face.

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[SuricouRaven]

Don't forget internet feuds - there are many stories of flamewars getting seriously out of hand and leading to one site SWATting the other, or submitting anonymous tip-offs to police about a claimed serious crime, or contacting an opponent's employer to spread malicious rumors in an attempt to have them fired.

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to what Mr Mohammed wrote, how he killed, how his followers killed; compared to the deadly teachings of Marx; compared to the killing spree Of Lenin, Stalin and Tshershinsky - the internet comments are basically peanuts.

Cultural Communism fused with Banksterism is the "political correct" thing these days. Mohammedics must not be called out for their brutality, according to establishment.

Thank God for the internet !

Re:End of open and honest? I'll disagree.

[SirDrinksAlot]

At what point did I say it should be banned? Please quote the statement. I'm absolutely fine with it as I said, I just said I understand why a public organization decided to end the anonymous commentary. What I didn't agree with was going back and unmasking the past anonymous comments. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just saying it's more effective if articulated appropriately. My examples you're so delightfully taking out of context because you're even more anonymous than I am were the real examples as to why the paper is ending anonymous commentary.

A small town newspaper, those comments are being made by your immediate neighbors. They apparently don't want you to know that *THEY* really think of you, but they *REALLY* want you to know it.

Outing the past anonymous commenters is just tabloid tactics. It's like having private information and sharing it with the world because they can. If they want their neighbors behaving with civility, fine, set the old comments on fire and go forth with your decisions. Like I said, nothing is forcing people from commenting - go else where if you want them to be anonymous. Requiring an identity is their attempt at maintaining civility.

So the paper decides to lead in uncivil discourse?

[QuietLagoon]

... consistent difficulty with posts that exceed the bounds of civil discourse...

The paper is doing what it accuses others of doing. The retroactive revealing of the authors of anonymous comments clears the bounds of civil discourse in street shoes.

.
imo, The Montana Standard is violating all manner of rules of Journalism if they go through with this most egregious stunt.

NSA DO THIS

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for the NSA to do this based on everyone's metadata they've collected. Imagine how hilarious a browser plugin that showed every comment of every site with it's real author (linked to all their different online profiles) based on browser device.

Man that would be funny.

Re: NSA DO THIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhmm...yeah, I think that it could be funny for the first 10 seconds, after that it would be a sheeeeeit storm.

Re:NSA DO THIS

[Anonymous Coward]

I am kind of okay with it for me, personally. I am not okay for it for you but I am for me. If they want to go through all that effort and waste the money then it will be funny as shit. Then again, I don't really say anything bad on the 'net 'cause I don't really have anything bad to say. If they want to waste the time and effort of tracking me (though I use a proxy and everything is blocked by default) then should then realize that I speak my mind in a civil manner. I am polite to a fault. Kindly, DIAF fgt! See? To a fault. Now track me through vpnme and then get past my script blocking and default cookie blocking and my not entirely unique profile on panopticon and have a good time at it. Feel free to waste that money. Then reveal to the public that this AC is actually pretty polite, curious, and has bad taste in music and fairly normal porn habits - and reveal it to the world! Good luck with that wasted expense. Like I said, it's okay for me but I'd not presume to speak for you my fellow AC. However, with enough digging they'll find out that I'm a pretty good guy and doesn't afraid of anything. It'd be a huge waste of resources. Also, I'm super polite. Back to that suggesting you die in a fire bit and commenting about your supposed sexual orientation. On that note, have a nice day! fgt!

"impossible"?

[v1]

He says he was told by his content-management software experts that such a configuration is impossible.

No, he was told by his content management software "experts" that his experts are incompetent (they just worded it differently)

Re:"impossible"?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a trivial fix unless the CMS is also the payment processor.

If they are allowing their CMS to query their financial records they are even more incompetent than you suggest.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to take the historical contents of the pseudonym field in the database and swap it with the "legal name" field contents such that a change to the presentation layer requires no distinction.

It also wouldn't require a rocket scientist to have two different configurations of the CMS handle different discussions based on the date of the discussion.

This is pure laziness &/or ineptitude.

Re:"impossible"?

[gstoddart]

The other alternative is the content-management software is garbage.

Me, I'm laying my money on that one.

Don't go assuming these papers are building some specialized platform with software experts, they're buying a commercial product which does as much as the vendor made it to. Or worse, they're subscribing to a 3rd party to provide it, and in the process that 3rd party gets all your info anyway. I believe that's what disqus is for.

Sometimes, a competent person will tell you that, no, the software can't actually do that. My bet is the company who made it never built it to be able to do that, and the paper is so invested in having the comments they're not willing to care how this policy change impacts anybody.

And you can bet that if it comes down to keeping the comments because it adds value to their site (probably more than their own reporting does), or worrying about YOUR privacy ... they don't give a crap about you.

Re:"impossible"?

[thegarbz]

You assume that the reason for the configuration being impossible is technical. That's rarely the case.

Re:"impossible"?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are using a SaaS solution for comments, they have no control over it.

Create a new anonymous user

[HalAtWork]

Then reassign all old comments to that user. How fucking hard can that be?

Re:Create a new anonymous user

[CanadianMacFan]

And then every old comment will be made by one person. You lose any context of conversations that took place.

Re:Create a new anonymous user

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't one /b/ enough already?

Re:Create a new anonymous user

[AK Marc]

When everyone is AC already, you lose nothing.

further proof

[Gravis Zero]

if you give your information to a website, you should assume it will become public.

Re:further proof

[Anonymous Coward]

if you give your information to a website, you should assume it will become public.

If you believe that is true then you must either not do online shopping or not care about your financial details being released.

There's two sides to this...

[Jhon]

The paper's new policy has proven controversial among readers. "This is the end of open and honest comments on this site," wrote one user, who goes by the name BGF. "It is easy to put your name to your comments if you are retired. But it is another thing altogether if you have to worry about upsetting your peers and bosses at work."

My daughter was the victim of a horrific crime. One that was all over the news in a big market city (and surrounding cities). It's insane how nasty people can be when they don't think anybody will know it's them. Or how nasty they'll be if they don't think a victim or family member might see their post. I have no problem with news sites having policies like this. There are sites that allow anonymous posting elsewhere if someone has some political or "whistle blower" message they feel the need to post. This policy just cuts out trolls on a particular news site.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, a typical "look something bad happened to me so lets change something".

Re:There's two sides to this...

[whoever57]

Let's take your example a bit further. The nasty comments are there. They already exist. What benefit is there to de-anonymizing past postings? Will it really help if you know the names of the people who wrote those vile things?

Not allowing future anonymous comments isf one thing. De-anonymizing existing comments is entirely another.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[Jason Levine]

As opposed to your "nothing bad happened to me so obviously nothing needs to change?"

Not every bad thing means change needs to happen, but you can't just dismiss offhand any account of bad things happening and resultant calls for change.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[Jhon]

"What benefit is there to de-anonymizing past postings? Will it really help if you know the names of the people who wrote those vile things?"

Maybe force people to think before they "speak"? Society is an imperfect machine at best and if you take away the only 'lubricant' it has (civility) things will break down.

Will it help me know who they are? I really don't care who they are. Maybe their spouse, parent or child knowing will effect their future behavior. Maybe their girl/boyfriend knowing will effect their future behavior. Shame can be an effective tool.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Because I don't base changing the system for hundreds of thousands or millions of people based on my one personal bad experience. I am not that self-centered.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[CanadianMacFan]

I was just wondering what would have people posting with their real names (assuming they put them in their profile) done to prevent your daughter from being a victim. Or are you just trying to reduce the pain after the fact. The simple thing is don't read the comments because there's going to be idiots on there.

There are always going to be some people in society that will make improper comments. The Internet just makes it easier for their comments to be heard. These real name policies do nothing to stop the trolls because they don't verify the names.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they did think. Maybe you just disagree with them. That is the problem: you want to "shame" people to "affect" their behavior. For too long people have been unwilling to express their opinions because of societal restrictions. That needs to end. You and the Thought Police and the Catholic Church can save your shame-based behavior control for yourselves. 1984 was not a guidebook.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry about whatever happened to your daughter and the nasty comments which ensued, but I think you're missing the point here. Real name policies are not the issue --- the issue is the RETROACTIVE change of policy. And if you read the original article and follow ups (as opposed to the slashdot summary), you'll see that the original EULA under which the anonymous postings were made, users were promised that future changes to the EULA would still protect user information according to the original terms.

I suspect most here are programmers, and, as such, we know that the technical "experts" who said it was impossible to retain anonymity for the existing posts are either incompetent and/or liars.

Furthermore, if the paper cannot retain the anonyimity of the existing posts, they should just dump them all and start with a clean slate for comments made under the new, real name policy.. This would solve all their concerns about uncivil postings while honoring the promises they made under the prior EULA. So I found the "explanations" offered by the representative of the paper to be disingenuous at best.

I have no skin in this particular game. For one thing, I had never even heard of the paper in question. Furthermore, on the rare occasion I am moved to comment on something I read on the internet, I link my comments to a disposable email address (never used across multiple websites) created with fictional name, DOB, zip, etc. (again, never reused across sites). Of course, we all know we can, with varying degrees of effort and one or more subpoenas, be tracked down through the IP address in use at the time of a posting, so it's a good idea not to post actionable comments anyway. If I were affected by this particular case (as in, I were subscribed to the paper in question under my real name), I would contact the paper to request my posts be removed (the article says this is an option, and gives a cutoff date for such notification), I would cancel my subscription in protest of the retroactive aspect of the new policy, and I would encourage all other subscribers to cancel as well. This is an egregious act on the part the paper and is being cloaked by the almost always bogus claim of "the computer just won't let us do THAT." No one should support such an organisation.

Again, the new policy is not the issue. They can require real ids if they want to. But to unmask the ids of those who commented under the old policy is at best ill-conceived and at worst DANGEROUS. That the paper is run by people who actually think this is a reasonable way to proceed is an indication that the publication cannot go out of business soon enough.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe force people to think before they "speak"?

What you really mean is, maybe prevent people from speaking at all. I hope you don't live in America with an attitude such as this. Were it not for a bunch of guys doing the equivalent of posting anonymous comments on the newspaper website of their day, America itself wouldn't exist.

If you see something, say something, citizen.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[whoever57]

Maybe force people to think before they "speak"? Society is an imperfect machine at best and if you take away the only 'lubricant' it has (civility) things will break down.

Again, they already spoke. What is it about the difference between past and future that you don't understand?

Re:There's two sides to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe force people to think before they "speak"?

Read all the words.

"What benefit is there to de-anonymizing past postings?

Revealing who wrote what last week won't cause posters to rephrase what they might type tomorrow. Knowing that their real identify will be revealed with tomorrow's post will likely temper their tongue, but revealing their identity for something they typed last week will only demonstrate that the maintainer of the commenting software is a dick for retroactively changing the agreement of anonymity.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, you goddamn fascist.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stay with me here *tinfoil hat powers activate*

If I was to guess I would say someone digging through the comments found something really juicy that had been made by someone who really wouldn't want it coming out that they said that. The only way to make it officially public would be to either have a convenient data breach which would look bad or to retroactively de-anonymize the comments to expose said persons statement in a way that can at least be played off somewhat ambiguously. With people ultimately arguing over the pros and cons, instead of flipping out over their data being "breached".

Re:There's two sides to this...

[whoever57]

If I was to guess I would say someone digging through the comments found something really juicy that had been made by someone who really wouldn't want it coming out that they said that.

Could some mischief be achieved by planting some comments now? Use a service like mailinator to get an anonymous account, but make the name associated with the account "Donald Trump", or "Bernie Sanders", or any of the other candidates, and write a comment that is mildly offensive now, but appears much more offensive if written by that candidate. Wait until January, then make sure the comment gets noticed.

Re:There's two sides to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all kinda wibbly wobbly, timey, whimey.

Can we do this on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

...asked the anonymous coward

Re:So the paper decides to lead in uncivil discour

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, revealing people who are totally fucked up and corrupt is exactly what journalists DO.

It's not violating any ethical standards. A violation of ethical standards would be revealing their sources of the truth. But revealing someone's name because they made an opinion on something? Not unethical at all. In fact, it's common practice amongst journalists to do such things. In fact, they'd rather get a person's real name instead of asking them to remain anonymous.

I don't mind real names on select sites

[Anonymous Coward]

As stated in the article tho... and for myself personally, I only post using a real name on very select sites because in this day and age human resources will twist and use your comments as any excuse to let you go if you can be replaced more cheaply. That and some sites attract more overly-sensitive twats than most who get offended by everything so there's no point in posting any other way than anonymously on them.

captcha = bigoted (how perfectly appropriate that SJW dot would label me as such for sharing an honest opinion)

No. Just no.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the Standard announces that past comments will suddenly appear using the users' real names unless users contact the paper no later than December 26 to ask that their comments be removed..."

All humans on planet Earth should be able to post their opinions on internet sites without fear of reprisal. I do not wish to live in a world where this is not allowed. Looking at you Saudi Arabia, et al.

So instead of pseudonyms like "TheseNutz"

[JoeyRox]

You'll see the "real" identify people registered under, which for this example will be "These J. Nutz".

Re:So instead of pseudonyms like "TheseNutz"

[Anonymous Coward]

So clearly they need to require that all users give their complete middle name instead of just an initial.

Re:So instead of pseudonyms like "TheseNutz"

[Motherfucking Shit]

I don't know about this newspaper, but my local newspaper ties your online account directly to your real identification. You can't even sign up for their website unless you subscribe to the physical newspaper. In order to register for their website (and subsequently make any comments on an article) you have to enter your address and the subscriber number that appears on your bill. There's no way to provide "These J. Nutz" as your identity, unless you managed to get a credit card in that name and are using it to pay for the newspaper.

Newspaper publishers, for whatever reason, really dislike anonymity or pseudonymity these days. You can't even write a "name withheld by request" letter to the editor anymore. It's a shame.

This is pretty much exactly what YouTube did...

[overlook77]

Remember when YT forced everyone to merge their stupid Google+ accounts with their YT handle? My YouTube identity all of a sudden was forced to be my real name. Now if you decide to voice an opinion that someone might disagree with, you get to worry about retaliation.

Re:This is pretty much exactly what YouTube did...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're worried about a comment online being "retaliation"?

I'm amused at how self-conscious and stupid people are about hateful comments online. Big fucking deal. Get offline and go do something else. Leave the assholes and adolescent jackasses to their own B.S.

I did this six years ago, and don't feel any regret, loss, or anything. In fact, I feel fucking great!

dumb all the way around

[kencurry]

1) Dumb for the admins - c'mon you can't figure out how to implement policy on a date and not have it wreck old posts?
2) Dumb for the paper's management - once your online presence dries up, people will bail on your paper
3) Dumb for the readership - Why stick with a paper that has such stupid policies?

PC culture is the end of free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

"We have encountered consistent difficulty with posts that exceed the bounds of civil discourse"

Translation: people might post things that will cause the politically correct authoritarians to make things inconvenient for us by throwing shitfits on social media unless we censor the things they want us to censor.

Anonymous posting has nothing to do with protecting insane horseshit like death threats or calls to violence. Anonymous posting allows a dissenting voice against the PC narrative that is currently trying to silence all of its opponents through censorship and mob tactics.

Local news site already did this, didn't stop...

[Viewsonic]

The racists are full on racist regardless that their names are shown. Every time a crime is reported, and a minority is in the headlines, you get non-stop bashing. When they fail to report the race, the comments complain that they're trying to cover up the race, and do it anyways. This is in one of the most liberal cities in the USA, too. It's so sad how far we've fallen.

Re:What a bunch of pathetic idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Joke's on you, Bozo. Most of the people in Montana immigrated there from California.

What idiots

[seebs]

Real names have never actually worked for improving discourse. What they've done is allow the trolls to attack people directly instead of being limited to doing it online.

LOL, seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of idiot signs up to a comment system with a real name and/or address?

I must have "signed up" to 100 of these kinds of lists or groups in the last 5 or 10 years, and never once did I provide anything remotely connect to my real name.

Yes, they could probably out me via my IP, but they aren't suggesting that'll be part of this, are they?

If they are, then warm up the lawyers because daddy's gonna buy a new boat, plus an island to dock it on!

Simple

[mbone]

Make all of the old accounts inactive. Make everyone reregister (or not, as they prefer) under their real names for new accounts. If someone can show that they were previously posting under their own name, reactivate that account by hand. That will probably be a full time job for someone for a few weeks.

I would not be too surprised if they got sued under their plan. One lawsuit, even if they win, would cost a lot more than the costs of doing this right.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

They would also have to go through the database of old posters and update their 'real name' field to their current username. That would have to be done in some automated fashion and it has been shown that the paper does not control the database or code.

But the solution seems so simple. Just do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ask your contractor how much the job will cost and he says $3,000, but you've only got $2,000 left in your budget for software changes, the solution becomes impossible.

cue the court-cases

[lkcl]

i look forward to the next slashdot article, "newspaper involved in class-action lawsuit for harm done to reputations of thousands of forum users"...

Re:cue the court-cases

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that will happen. I think the next slashdot article will be "Newspaper office burned to the ground". It is Montana, after all.

Blank Slate

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming they cannot move forward with the new idea for the system (anonymity be damned... sigh) without exposing previous posts... then do not use the original system. At a global level create a new 'account' on the system (or setup a new site, use a different service, etc.) and turn the old one into a read only archival option. New system/site/thingamabob is a blank slate and users now need to register with a BIG disclaimer stating that their name will be posted.

To expose previous posts, even from horrible trolls, after having established an assumption of privacy of identity smells bad all around. You are a journalistic corporation, you should know better.

I post this as an anonymous coward...

Anonymity vs. Pseudonymity

[ZipK]

Why anyone would give a newspaper's comment platform their real name and e-mail address is beyond me. Make up a name, use a burner e-mail account from mailinator.com and don't worry about unintelligent boobs retroactively deciding to out you. Next time you're asked for your name and e-mail address, ask yourself how much you trust the service who's asking, and what value there is to you in providing accurate information.

Re:So the paper decides to lead in uncivil discour

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not violating any ethical standards. A violation of ethical standards would be revealing their sources of the truth. But revealing someone's name because they made an opinion on something? Not unethical at all.

With regards to journalistic ethics you are asserting that at no time has some one revealed a truth that is in the public interest to know in the comments section. You must have scanned it pretty thoroughly to be able to say that.

It's not violating any ethical standards.

As lots of ethical standards place value on truth and not deceiving people (int this case that they would be anonymous) it most certainly is against lots of ethical standards.

What the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

People signed up to post on the papers website with their real name?

Well, it is Montana, where basic common-sense is outlawed.

Re:What a bunch of pathetic idiots.

[jedidiah]

You mean a small minority of people that got fed up with the People's Republic of California?

No comprende

[nospam007]

Why on earth do people use their real names on sites like that?

Other than my bank, nobody gets my real name. All the stuff I order online goes to a packet delivery machine, usually addressed to my cat, which is also the proud owner of my ISP account and other things.

Re:What a bunch of pathetic idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's usually liberals from places like NY who want to sacrifice anonymity for 'social justice.'

This is why

[Fnord666]

This is why I use the editor's name when I sign up for such things.

easy fix

[wendyo]

All they have to do is update the database to overwrite the "real name" with the pseudonym before going live with their new policy.

AC from Butte here with more info

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought some of you might want to see some of the 'current' TOS and Privacy Policy wording you have to 'agree to' to setup an account.

From Terms of Use under Content Submitted by You ("Submissions")

You are granting us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to use, copy, modify, transmit, sell, exploit, create derivative works from, distribute and/or display such Submission, in whole or in part, in any manner or medium now known or hereafter developed

So typical 'All your base are belong to us' boiler plate with a Running Man style 'now known or hereafter developed' rider clause.

You automatically waive any claim that any use of such content violates any of your rights, including privacy rights, publicity rights, moral rights or any other right, including the right to approve the way we use such content

Hmmm, this one sounds a little more draconian. Also do you see the Catch-22 - You waive any claim that our use violates your privacy rights. Why have a privacy policy to begin with? Nothing they do can violate you privacy rights, right?

From Privacy Policy under A final note

The web is an evolving medium. If we need to change our Privacy Policy at some point in the future, we will post the changes before they take effect if we believe that the change in the way we use your personal information is significant or material. Of course, our use of information gathered while the current policy is in effect will always be consistent with the current policy, even if we change that policy later.

For the facepalm kicker - Of course, our use of information gathered while the current policy is in effect will always be consistent with the current policy, even if we change that policy later .

So I think you can really see what's going on here --- we report, you decide (or was that we report, you concur - I keep forgetting).

Anonymous/Pseudonymous Bankster Control

[Anonymous Coward]

...has so far prevented the necessity for U.S.M.C. corporal John Hitler to take control of the situation. Apparently Banksters are susceptible to outside pressure. They know how to easily work around regulations, but they cannot work around being shouted down in their own living quarters.

They bitch and moan about the "ice princess" and things like that. They would want to destroy the economy and still be liked, it seems.

They tried to re-run 1929 in 2008. They failed so far.

Internet anonymity played a major role in this effort.

Thank god we do not yet see a need to raise John Hilter into the top job.

Re:What a bunch of pathetic idiots.

[konohitowa]

So you're saying that you think Ted Turner is behind it?

They got a shock coming

[RalphOstrander4038]

We say the very same shit real name or not.

This is a business decision - possibly a fatal one

[davidwr]

I can't blame the paper for going the cheapest route. I can blame them for believing patently false info fed to them by their content-management software experts and going with what they THINK is the cheapest route.

I assume their goal is to have a non-anonymous content system going forward, keep their existing comments, and keep the "comment history" of non-anonymous commenters intact and so future comments are connected to past ones made by the same person.

I also assume they want to have all of this done by a certain date and under a certain budget.

Given the short time-frame I assume the remaining work, if any, is expected to take less than a few months.

Their options are:

* Stick with their existing configuration (does not meet the criteria above)
* Dump their existing comment system and start over with a brand new one, possibly losing their entire comment history (does not meet the criteria above)
* Dump their existing comment system and NOT replace it (does not meet the criteria above)
* Keep their existing comment system as an archive but not allow any new comments (does not meet the criteria above)
* Pay $BIGBUCKS to "do the impossible" and get a system that can keep historical comments anonymized but give them what they want going forward (likely does not meet the time and budget criteria above, by a longshot)
* Pay $BIGBUCKS in direct, measurable costs of lawsuits and lost customers and $MOREBIGBUCKS in lost goodwill (likely does not meet the budget criteria above, by a longshot)

The question is, which criteria are they willing to sacrifice? If they continue on their current path, they are choosing to sacrifice the "budget" criteria. I hope they have good legal insurance and enough capital to survive the public relations nightmare that lies ahead of them, or they may wind up needing to hire a good bankruptcy lawyer.

My real name?

[Anonymous Coward]

And my real name isn't actually "Anonymous Coward" It's "Robert'; DROP TABLE Users;"
Mom calls me Little Bobby Tables.

Horrible idea, but...

[yuhong]

I agree that this is a horrible idea and so is real name policies too. The real solution is to actually fix the problems with using real names. A recent example is this fiasco:

http://ryanspahn.com/my-google...

https://news.ycombinator.com/t... (the first comments are not hard to find)

If people are afraid of standing behind...

[Anonymous Coward]

...what they say, perhaps they shouldn't say it in the first place.

Re: If people are afraid of standing behind...

[Anonymous Coward]

...says every person in history who agrees with official discourse and doesn't understand that the opinion of a rebel has always been punished and will always be.....

In medieval times, you would have been the guys who says about the Inquisition: I don't understand how Jews want to remain anonymous. If they are afraid of standing behind their religion, they should not practice it

The software issue and the business issue...

[guevera]

...are the two problems this paper is facing.

They're using Blox CMS from an outfit called TownNews, which is a division of Lee newspapers. Blox is a CMS/PAAS that focuses on newspapers. It is closed source, but is built with PHP and uses MYSQL (or MariaDB maybe). It employs a proprietary templating language called UTL that uses syntax that reminds me a bit of Django templating.

Blox is a very good news CMS. I've used a bunch of them. I don't love any of them, but Blox is the best.

You can modify Blox pretty much any part of Blox, there's no real lock in.

The issue is that there's likely no one in the nesroom who can actually do it.

Major metro newspapers will often have a handful of news focused developers. A newspaper the size of the one in this story is lucky to have a minimally competent IT guy keeping the paper's network up and all the desktops running.

The paper as a whole is probably struggling to keep the lights on. It's not going to contract custom software development.

So easy to fix...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dev creates user 'anon', mass change all comments to say was posted by that user.
Next, comments for each article have regular username comment section and an 'unmoderated' anon section.

As a Montanan

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit this is months old news. /. is on the cusp of the old. I could have gotten news faster from a physical newspaper than this. The actual hell are the editors doing around here?

"such a configuration is impossible?" bull

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who works as a "content-management software" engineer for The New York Times, I can tell you for a fact that not only are their "experts" lying, such a change to not affect retroactive comments is trivial.

We also actively follow the many commentaries about comment systems including why some site have shut them down and others use different systems. The solution we have found is in active investment in the user community including a staff of paid moderators. The problem for a small town paper is cost, and disallowing pseudo anonymous comments is not a bad step, but outing people who previously commented under an expectation of privacy is just terrible. Any commenter we wish to to talk about is directly contacted and asked permission before using their real name, and respected if they decline as was seen in a recent article about the top commeters on The New York Times' website:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/23/nytnow/23commenters.html

That's very anti-troll

[iq145]

With the vast majority of commenters being trolls, this won't go over too well :-)

Oh heavens!

[lienlaw4958]

So now, when you say shitty things, you have to use your name. You figure driving in your car and picking your nose, nobody knows it's you, because you're in your car. Suck it up, say what you think. You may have to be a bit more civil, but that's why we have education. I can tell you you're wrong in a way that doesn't set the world afire.

Cpt. Carrot

[Anonymous Coward]

But your real name is Captain Carrot.

The only question is:
are you a 6'6" Discworld Dwarf
or a DC Comics rabbit superhero

Re:Cpt. Carrot

[CCarrot]

But your real name is Captain Carrot.

The only question is:
are you a 6'6" Discworld Dwarf
or a DC Comics rabbit superhero

Haha, good catch!

Here's a hint: my nickname translates to "head banger" ... :)

Just go offline

[Anonymous Coward]

In light of their soon to be lack of anonymity, I propose they just turn off comments altogether and delete all past history. No one will bother posting anything going forward anyways...

More reasons we need privacy regulations in the US

[anti-disney]

This is another example of how you data that you wish to remain anonymous can easily change. For example a company could initially say that they will not reveal anything about your name and require you to enter a phone number, email address, and other information in order to register and say that they will not share this information and even indicate this in their terms of service. They could change their Terms of Service at any time or another company can come along such as Facebook and buy out this company and decide that your real name should be on your comments and sell your name and other information to data brokers and telemarketers to make money.

Another reason why I don't participate...

[Anonymous Coward]

This, and Hilary's email problems, and Google's change of policy with bloggers and censoring Palestinian voices (maybe, a bit murky on that one), etc. etc. are confirmation bias for my behaviour: I avoid, sometimes like the plague, many parts of the internet and behaviors on the same. It can come back to bite you.