Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
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.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
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.