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."
Have gnu, will travel.
this should be as simple as testing comment date if less than transition date then post pseudonyms.
Not sure why some people have computers.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
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.
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.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
"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 ...
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No, he was told by his content management software "experts" that his experts are incompetent (they just worded it differently)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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!
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.
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.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
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.
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.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.
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.
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.