Stop allowing anonymous online comments

[47of74]

Just came across this piece by Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald.

There was this new medium, the Internet, and newspapers were posting stories on it, and someone decided to create a forum where readers could discuss and debate what they just read. It must have seemed an inspiration kissed by the spirit of Jefferson: a free public space where each of us could have his or her say.

Unfortunately, the reality of the thing has proved to be something else entirely. For proof, see the message boards of pretty much any paper. Or just wade in the nearest cesspool. The experiences are equivalent. Far from validating some high-minded ideal of public debate, message boards — particularly those inadequately policed by their newspapers and/or dealing with highly emotional matters — have become havens for a level of crudity, bigotry, meanness and plain nastiness that shocks the tattered remnants of our propriety.

For every person who offers some trenchant observation on the point at hand, there are a dozen who are so far off point they couldn’t find their way back with a compass and road map. For every person who brings up some telling fact, there are a dozen whose “facts” are fantasies freshly made up to suit the exigencies of arguments they otherwise cannot win.

Why have message boards failed to live up to the noble expectations? The answer in a word is, anonymity. The fact that on a message board — unlike in an old-fashioned letter to the editor — no one is required to identify themselves, no one is required to say who they are and “own” what they’ve said, has inspired many to vent their most reptilian thoughts.

I agree with that 150%.

[ixion]

1. It should remain up to the person who owns the site

and should be no business of anyone else.

[wolfgangmo]

13. translation: money talks - and anyone else can just bend over and drop their pants.

I am all for net neutrality, but what you are suggesting is that anyone who owns a website should allow anything.

Frankly, if I owned a site I would make anyone who wanted to comment be registered and vetted (perhaps by CC) before they could comment. You want to see sewage thinking, check out the craigslist rants and raves. It's chock a block full of teahadists shrilly shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Whatever it is, it ain't about democracy

[ixion]

18. If you don't like a site, don't go there

censoring people is not the answer, just because you don't agree with them.

Apparently you don't get how the internet works. Even if you try and censor a site, all they have to do is move their site to a host outside the US, and they're back in business.

[Uncle Joe]

22. I agree with your posts. n/t

[ixion]

31. thanks

nice to know someone does. :)

[teknomanzer]

34. We are not vetted with a credit card here...

and not everyone has a damn credit card -- and people don't like casually throwing their credit card around the internet. The reason DU works so well is because it has MODERATORS. The sites where there is just a stack of bullshit comments lack good moderators or any at all...

The internet is still a very new medium -- and the unique thing about this medium is that it is interactive rather than passive like its precursors print, radio, and television. With this medium the user is responsible for the information he or she receives. This is a huge paradigm shift.

To make effective use of the internet people are going to have to learn how to separate bullshit from fact. Learning to discern fact from fiction is much easier than forcing people to stop spreading bullshit... and its good for you too.

[Tumbulu]

2. I agree absolutely

the nastiness is unacceptable and the wrong wingers always drown out anyone being civil.

[47of74]

9. The paper where I live stopped anonymous comments a couple years ago

This was after a local murder where the victim was white and the perpetrator was black. At the time anyone could post comments, and someone took advantage of the software to repeatedly post an image of a man being lynched. The paper took down the commenting feature at that point and notified law enforcement of what had just happened.

They brought the system back a few days later. Gone was the ability for guests to automatically post stuff - guests at the time could still make comments but these comments would sit in a queue to await approval. People who registered and verified their addresses could then post at any time and have their comments appear right away provided they didn't abuse the service. Later the ability of guests to post at all was taken away.

Even with all that done we still have a right wing noise machine that appears regularly on the site - they drown out anyone who doesn't agree with them to the point that I don't post very many comments nor do I read them anymore.

[RandomThoughts]

3. There is another point to that.

People that advocate for a cause when paid by some organization should have to have full disclosure on conflicts of interest also.

[Captain Hilts]

6. That would knock a few folks off this site. nt

[BunkerHill24]

27. ROFL

Pray do tell us :rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

4. You agree with that "150%," 47of74?

:shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

5. YES!!!!

[rcrush]

7. Welcome to the internet 1990's style.

Anonymous message board posting get vulgar and racist. OMG CALL THE FUCKING MEDIA!

[paulsby]

8. will newspapers stop using anonymous sources then?

i sense a whiff of hypocrisy

this is my favorite part of his authoritarian nonsense

"Far from validating some high-minded ideal of public debate, message boards — particularly those inadequately policed by their newspapers "

POLICED by their newspapers.

oh please, high and mighty newspapers. police our wayward ways!

[wolfgangmo]

14. False analogy.

Of course, that is not surprising.

How exactly are anonomous posting of comments the same as reporting of a story?

[paulsby]

15. it's not a false analogy at all

newspapers use anonymous sources because they recognize that many people could not freely give the information they give if their identities were subject to disclosure.

so, they are ok with using them.

well, guess what? the same thing holds in opinion forums. many people could not speak freely for any # of reasons having to do with their careers, etc.

good for goose, good for gander

the nonsense here is that newspapers, the high and mighty media should have that discretion, but we the plain citizens? hell no

hth

[Uncle Joe]

23. I agree with your posts. n/t

[truedelphi]

30. But we can certainly always believe our news papers and news wire

Services. NOT!!

http://oldelmtree.com/discussion/index.php?topic=53.0

[paulsby]

32. exactly

we need them to tell us what is right and wrong and to distinguish when anonymity is ok

god forbid the average citizen do so. it would be ANARCHY!!!

[skepticscott]

10. Who will be the judge

of whether an opinion has been expressed politely enough to please the fastidious Mr. Pitts? And who is to be the judge of whether a fact is "telling" enough to justify its inclusion, or whether it is just "fantasy"? Or could it possibly be that opinions run all along the spectrum from one to the other, with no clear dividing line, and no particular correlation between the accuracy of an opinion and the courtesy with which it is communicated?

[Uncle Joe]

24. The top down, one way communicating, conflict of interest laden Editor or owner

of said publication, disc jockey of talk radio or television talk show "news" director.

[mbperrin]

11. Ben Franklin wrote some controversial pieces for his brother's paper

under the name Silence Dogwood.

The founding fathers used pseudonyms often. Go here for a list of about 40:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_constitutional_debates


Perfectly valid points can be destroyed by ad hominem arguments or simply by muscling the author. Hardly the way to have an open discussion, is it?

[bemildred]

12. Nobody makes you do anything on the Internet.

The right to say whatever you like is exactly what it says, and if you don't want to play by those rules, then don't, go somewhere else where things are run more sedately.

[cstanleytech]

16. I'm split on the issue.

Without any anonymity some people might not feel free to voice their thoughts for fear of harassment in reallife (like myself) but on the other hand it does allow alot of crackpots from both ends of the spectrum to behave badly without fear of repercussions.

[Lerkfish]

17. I don't agree... I was a victim of internet stalking

For the simple act of pointing out a software product did not live up to its claims, I was harrassed and stalked by the company's owner... I changed my email address, but not before he had subscribed me to various pedophile chat groups and other unsavory things. He followed me wherever I went and even sent threatening letters to my home address.
Luckily, my internet provider was on top of the issue and could verify I wasn't subscribing to those things.

and finally, a major software magazine, PC world, reviewed the software and pointed out the EXACT SAME THINGS I did, only they were able to conclusively prove it, and in print.


ever since then, I am VERY careful to protect my identity as much a possible on the internet.

[Uncle Joe]

25. On the other hand if the corporate media decide to stalk you or your family, the entire world has

the right to know every detail of your life 24/7 whether it's critical information or not, if it destroys your family and life so be it.

Princess Diana wasn't running from the Internet.

[Lerkfish]

28. um...ok.

not sure what that has to do with my point, but thanks for sharing.

[Uncle Joe]

29. Just reinforcing your point regarding the value of anonymity as a juxtaposition of Pitts'

and no doubt by extension, much of the corporate media's ready disregard for this when it comes to the Internet and edit to add, "in general."

[theFrankFactor]

19. What Bull Shit!

An embarrassing solution to the problem of Liberals being to god damn weak to push down conservatives. Here's a thought; fight the fuck back!

This is so contrary to what I see Liberalism and Progressivism about that I should be surprised to see it here... but I'm not.

A loosing strategy.

[no limit]

20. If you think you are being anonymous on the internet boy are you in for a shock

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. MinnPost, an online Twin Cities paper founded by veteran journalists who were

let go from the Minnapolis and St. Paul papers, does not allow anonymous comments, so the tone is much more measured and logical, even though there are actual conservatives posting. They can't get away with name-calling or racist remarks or any of the other "charming" traits you see on regular newspaper websites.

[blueworld]

26. As usual, I disagree with Mr. Pitts general premise, although mods are important. n/t

[naaman fletcher]

33. Perhaps Pitts has seen reality and doesn't like it.

So he wants to bury his head in the sand. This is what people are really like. Mean, nasty, and rude.