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...
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.
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.
They would be on much firmer ground to invite an opt in and delete all pseudonymous comments from those who don't.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.