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."
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.
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.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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.
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.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...