As many folks know, I’ve long supported allowing participants to comment using a pseudonym on this blog and, before that, on the Newton TAB Blog. But recently I’ve been having second thoughts. Rather than going into my own reasons now, I’d like to hear from you first.
Is it time to require that all participants use their real name? Would it make you more or less likely to participate if we did?
I will say, that if we did make the change, I wouldn’t be making the decision alone. The final decision would rest with the team of bloggers who contribute to this site.
[polldaddy poll=”7337727″]
[polldaddy poll=”7337734″]
The Huffington Post has announced that it is ending anonymous posting. Is it time for Village 14 to follow?
Globe article here
I’ve enjoyed the way our blogs have worked; some use names, some use nom de blogs, some use one-offs and I would miss my alter ego if the rules changed. With anonymity there’s a bit more loose cannon effect, but it keeps it interesting. I don’t see it as a make or break either way.
I’ll just legally change my name to Terry Malloy…
Oops. Tried to put a link in to the Globe article but flunked. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/08/21/huffington-trolls-uglier-than-ever-cutting-off-anonymous-comments/y8C96rssvEne2VunVzPZJP/story.html
I feel as a parent who comments alot about the schools, I would become a lurker. I would read but would not post at all. Of course, I could always make up a name, and no one would know. I could become Ann Smith, and that is a name, just not mine.
@Terry: Thanks for the link to the Huffington story on Boston.com. Good quote here from Arianna Huffington ….
If I have to start using my real name (Gerard Reilly) I think I’ll stop posting.
I’d be ok with real names in concept. I’d still say what I say. But I would be concerned during silly season (i.e., elections), as some people take differences of opinion in state/national politics very personally. Add poor ethics, and that’s potential trouble. Yeah, lurkers targeting people IRL (in real life) because of their posts seems a stretch. But it has happened. So I would prefer to remain an airport.
On a related note, I hesitate over a formal policy on ad hominem attacks (I’m importing this thought from another thread on which I am no longer posting). I trust @Greg (who has done a great job with V14) to make the call on a case-by-case basis, and take down posts that are attacks with no redeeming value. The bar for ad hominem should be high for people who are public figures, who should have a reasonable expectation of public scrutiny and yes, criticism.
Thanks Dulles. Except the reality is that none of the moderators are able to read all the comments in real time. And, frankly, there are some contributors comments that I never read unless someone else calls it to my attention.
Dan Kennedy just linked to this on the topic: http://howardowens.com/2010/04/02/7349/
Thanks Andreae: Another worthy read. This quote resonates with me…
I’m not crazy about anonymous blogging, but I do get there are some folks who worry about a backlash.
Unnecessary attacks seem to come from both types [hidden and known] and I see that as the larger problem. So on balance, iI think we ought not lose those that feel the need to stay hidden, while being perhaps a bit more strict against those ad hominem attacks we often read.
@Dan – exactly. There are some anonymous posters here (myself included, I hope) whose posts are civil, and there are some people who use their names (which may or may not be their real names) who can get quite vicious. I haven’t noticed that much difference between the groups on this blog.
Stop trying to reinvent the internet. For the thousandth time, not all of us are politicians. Some of us work in the private sector and have meetings with people who shouldn’t know anything more about us than what our company does. Some of us are looking for jobs and our opinions would help in the interview process. Some of us have kids in the school system and would like to speak the truth about our experience rather than worry that our opinions could hurt our children’s standing with some school officials. Some people don’t want their political opinions to be ‘google-able.’
Get over yourself Village 14. You are a blog. Act like one.
Actually Kim a many blogs have made this transition.
Put me in the “continue to be undecided category.” I wouldn’t mind a trial period — maybe for the duration of election season — to see what happens. Back during the days of the Cohen administration and the firefighter contract negotiations, it made perfect sense to me why a lot of people wouldn’t want to use their names. But we haven’t seen those kinds of comments in years. People mostly hide behind pseudonyms to throw out allegations that they don’t have to back up.
I will say, however, that most of the nastiest comments on this blog seem to come from people who use their names.
Joshua, I’ve been reading/commenting on this blog since it was launched. The blog has always allowed folks to comment without using a full name as long as a consistent “blog identity” was used, which I have done. Those were the rules of the sandbox. You, on the other hand, arrived here pre-override and immediately began a practice of deriding all participants who blog without full names as “trolls” and “sock puppets” if they challenged your views. I have on several occasions enumerated the reasons why I participate with a first name only (Kim does a nice job summing them up above), but also made it clear that many, if not most of us who comment here regularly know who the participants are IRL. As I’ve said before, I’m easy to find, so if you think throwing my name out there shows your mad internet sleuthing skills, you’re sadly mistaken. What it does show is exactly the type of person you are.
Greg, those quotes refer to anonymous commenting on news sites. Is Village14 a blog or a news site?
I’ve removed the comment from Josh that Tricia was referring to.
I’ve removed some comments between Trisha and Josh.
Thank you Greg.
Anonymous or not, we ought to continue to develop guidelines for acceptable behavior, like Gail did, and encourage each other to stick to them. Pulling comments is a last resort. Maybe ad hominem attacks belong on that list, maybe they don’t. In the case the other day, it’s true the ad hominem attacks were made against a well-known public figure, but he’s also someone who lives in our community and even participates directly in V14. It ought to be possible to have a vigorous debate without putting someone down personally, and that applies to our public officials as well. If people launch personal attacks, it does reflect poorly on them, as Gail says, but it also makes V14 a less welcoming, less tolerant place.
As for anonymity, Howard Owens may be taking the newspaper analogy a bit too far. To Kim’s point, what you say online — including public Facebook discussions — is indexed and recorded for eternity in ways microfiche never could do, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But consider also the analytics of social graphs. It’s not only what you say that’s going to show up on Google, but who you associate with and what they said. If someone else participates in a thread and is less than civil, you are forever associated with their comments also. In this way, the anonymity and moderation questions are intertwined.
Others may disagree but I think Village 14 is a little of both — a blog and a news site. We’ve certainly reported a lot of news here that other media outlets in the city didn’t have. Besides, the lines are blurry these days anyways.
i would add that if someone consistently is abusive of others on the site, at some point they ought to be blocked permanently.
A combination of what Tricia and Kim said. I have no need to remain anonymous, other than not wanting my name on the internet. As an alternative, I have what Tricia refers to an a “blog identity”. When people ask me if I’m Jane On The Blog I readily say yes, I go to blog parties and laugh over a blog dust-up with other bloggers.
That leaves me in the “undecided” category. I remember well the firefighters’ posts and many were powerful (I still remember “amazed”, one of the most effective posters on an issue, and on the blog over time IMHO). Anonymity was essential in that case.
However, the lack of a paid monitor has led to a lack of clarity to the boundaries. This is a local blog, not the bottom of a Boston.com article. We need to figure out how to live together in a community with diverse opinions, backgrounds, etc. I’m happy to see V14 address this issue.
Gail wrote ” People mostly hide behind pseudonyms to throw out allegations that they don’t have to back up.”
Gail – I don’t think you can back that up with statistics. I see plenty of poorly-supported allegations thrown out here by people who post with their full names. And most of the posters who use pseudonyms refrain from making allegations.
“I will say, however, that most of the nastiest comments on this blog seem to come from people who use their names.:
Exactly. So why pick on those of us who don’t use our names but are civil?
mgwa – You’re right. I can’t back it up with statistics. It’s simply an observation I’m making after administrating two local blogs for 7 years. But there are definitely exceptions to the rule — in both directions.
Perhaps Arianna Huffington should become acquainted with The Federalist Papers and their anonymous authors, “Publius”. Anonymous speech has long been a vital component of political discourse and debate. I’m far more interested in the points made than the individual making the point.
I do think the issues are somewhat different for national news sites with millions of commenters from around the world, and a hyper-local news/blog where the vast majority of the comments come from people who share the same city, neighborhoods, schools, etc. The big question is: what are you trying to accomplish? More civility? As has been demonstrated, some of the least civil, most personal discourse comes from folks using full names. Stop the “bomb throwers” who appear over a particular issue or election, who pretend to be someone they’re not? How are you going to do that? Require Facebook or Google logins? Who wants their blog comments showing up on FB? And people set up fake accounts all just to comment anonymously. I don’t know what the answer is.
@Tricia: Facebook doesn’t allow users to be anonymous. If we required that connection, then we’d eliminate the anonymity.
Greg Reibman — Not true. Gateway now requires FB all news comments and the result was tons of fake accounts (and drastically reduced discussion). We are extremely fortunate in Newton to have such a great gov’t. Other towns, many other towns, do not. One critical comment by a resident in a corrupt town triggers calls at home asking what the problem might be. Those are not comfortable calls.
Back in the 70s, the kinds of discussions you have here would occur on talk radio. Stations prohibited full names for a reason — can’t verify. Today, the only way to ensure you got the right real name is require a financial transaction using a credit card.
@Greg – what people do is set up fake profiles (that look legit) just so they can comment on sites requiring a FB login. When you see particularly nasty comments, check out the person’s FB page – if you see a somewhat blurry or far away profile picture (or one of an inanimate object) and a timeline filled with links to articles and comments but no real interactions, it’s probably a fake account.
Gatehouse
I would quit commenting. Nothing personal, but I can’t use my real name. Plus I love my handle.
As someone who has been known to become uncivil, I don’t feel like the comments get uncivil all that often.
“Facebook doesn’t allow users to be anonymous.”
Wrong Greg.
Same hoops to jump through as your blog.
Go ahead…. make my day!
What one person calls an “ad hominem” attack another person views as an opinion. We need to be careful how we censor public speech. I’ve been accused of it, and I’ve been attacked. When I’m attacked I just respond or ignore. It comes with this kind of discourse. Once I complained to Greg on the TAB blog, because I viewed it as way too out of line. Maybe even that should have been allowed. People get emotional about some of the issues on these blogs. And it’s important to have conflicting points of view.
And, okay, I admit it, my name is really Anthony Scarfo. No more anonymity. I’ll be TonyS.
Barry Cohen — I thought for sure your coming out would be as Ashley Scarfo. (No latin phased attack, Friday funny…)
Two interesting stories from this morning:
A story about someone that posted what was considered an insensitive blog post under his real name. His name is in this news report and the reporter showed up to his door asking about the blog comment:
http://www.wcvb.com/news/local/metro-west/neighbor-criticizes-couple-for-importing-special-needs-kids-from-china/-/11983044/21612048/-/nrr2e7z/-/index.html
And a story from Huffington where they decided against real names, the reporter quotes “anonymous posters in various online forums”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/intern-death-bank-of-america_n_3804775.html
Tom Keane of the Boston Globe has some interesting thoughts this morning regarding anonymous posting.
HERE
I think it would be a mistake if Village14-with a relatively small group of contributors- discouraged participation.
As I’ve indicated before, I agree with “Terry” that doing away with anonymous postings would represent a net loss for the blog.
Explore measures being used by others that aren’t as draconian.
If an anonymous poster puts stuff out there that’s offensive, delete it and warn the participant. If that person does it repeatedly, then you can bar them going forward. This would be true for known participants as well.
But don’t take the stance that disenfranchises ALL those who need/want anonymity.