Post: #1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/p...story.html

On March 1st, Patrick Pexton published this column on the Washington Post site to announce the end of his term as ombudsman. This was discussed on the Today Show this morning, because one of his observations from his time as ombudsman was the vile, hateful nature of the comments in the comments section:

The No. 1 topic of complaint to the ombudsman during my term: The Post’s online comment system. About 10 percent of those complaints were about its functionality, which The Post has improved. Another 10 percent were from people who feel they were unfairly censored. But the rest were from readers who like the idea of online comments but abhor the hatefulness, name-calling, racism and ideological warfare that are constant features of The Post’s commenting stream.

Early on, I was a fan of the give-and-take and anonymous nature of this electronic Hyde Park corner. Now I’m not.

What turned me were the truly ugly comments on a Feb. 4 article by Krissah Thompson on the high school football coach who criticized first lady Michelle Obama’s derriere. I was watching the online comment stream the night the story was published, and the moderators could barely delete fast enough the racist, sexist and crude comments. I don’t think comments like those should be within 10 miles of The Washington Post’s masthead. And readers agree; those who wrote in said it hurts the publication’s brand and reputation.

I think The Post should move, as the Miami Herald did recently, away from anonymous responses to a system that requires commenters to use their real names and to sign in via Facebook. It would reduce the volume of comments but raise the level of discussion and help preserve The Post’s brand.

So I ask you gentlemen...do you believe you should have to sign your name to comments you make online? Should anonymity be eliminated? First, I'm not interested in responses on how to beat this (using a fake name, etc.), nor am I suggesting that Roosh do that here at RVF. And yes, I know some of you don't have Facebook, so you couldn't sign in that way. I'm interested in your opinions regarding the prevailing question - should you have to use your real name to post comments online? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Post: #2

I think people are a lot more honest when it's anonymous.

So I'm going to have to go with a "no".

Post: #3

(03-05-2013 02:16 PM)Hannibal Wrote:  I think people are a lot more honest when it's anonymous.

So I'm going to have to go with a "no".

Yep. The Internet has shown that the average person is way worse than we ever could have imagined. Civilization is indeed a thin veneer.

Post: #4

They could very easily handle the situation with an upvote/downvote comment system that auto-hides lowly rated comments.

But of course that doesn't serve the interests of the corporations and the government who rightfully find internet anonymity threatening, and want to do away with it entirely as soon as possible.

Post: #5

(03-05-2013 02:16 PM)Hannibal Wrote:  I think people are a lot more honest when it's anonymous.

So I'm going to have to go with a "no".

Is it really "honesty" per se? Or is it the joy of trolling and other foolishness we're protecting?

Post: #6

Private Property Rights

Anon message boards like 4chan will show up to fill the gap, but if a site thats looking for comments on the issue, they can't give up the man hours to clean thier boards up.

If its your website, you can use the ban hammer. There does need to be a moderator guide that every mod should read though, since mods are usually power crazed dicks.

Post: #7

Anonymity gives people the courage to troll and also post their unpopular, politically incorrect opinions. While at times many comments on news websites do become a cesspool of filth, I think online anonymity should never be eliminated. The bad gives us a lot of good which is that people are allowed to say what they truly believe.

The trolling does take away from online discussions but the right and ability to make unpopular and politically incorrect opinions is important. Once anonymity is eliminated I am sure anyone (usually men) making comments on feminist and other articles will be revealed and derided by society.

Post: #8

Agree with up votes and down votes, but politically incorrect beliefs get upvoted all the time. They are trying to shut people up because they can't take reality.

Post: #9

(03-05-2013 03:06 PM)rmo Wrote:  Private Property Rights

Anon message boards like 4chan will show up to fill the gap, but if a site thats looking for comments on the issue, they can't give up the man hours to clean thier boards up.

If its your website, you can use the ban hammer. There does need to be a moderator guide that every mod should read though, since mods are usually power crazed dicks.

Part of the problem at the Washington Post was that the moderator couldn't work hard or fast enough to clean out the filth.

Post: #10

No. Anonymity is essential to airing true but unpopular opinions.

That said, if someone is being a troll, eg screaming slurs, the website should simply ban them. Have an automatic 'troll language detector' every time the word 'cunt' or 'nigger' appears, which bans the poster and prevents the post from getting through. I'm surprised there is no sophisticated language processor for online comments that filters out the troll posts - it's very easy to discern troll posts, imagine it's not that hard to ferret them out with software, compared to the difficulty of say, language translation.

Hell, I'd favor a Robot Grammar Nazi for this - if your post contains enough bad grammar, syntax, punctuation and spelling, your post will not be displayed. Most trolls write poorly, so this should be effective. Seriously think this is a brilliant, simple solution. If your IP address hails from a non-Anglophone country, or the site can tell your operating system or browser are in a foreign language, you might get a greater allowance for poor writing (but not too much, have to keep the IRTs out).

Post: #11

We're working from the premise that somehow politically incorrect = accurate or true. They're just opinions, and sometimes those opinions are just trolling. I think the premise behind removing anonymity is to raise the level of discourse - to scare away the trolls and bigots. You can post an unpopular opinion intelligently without flat-out trolling. I think the term politically incorrect has in many ways become outdated because the meaning has be changed and co-opted by bigots as cover to spew nonsense.

The problem I see is that even if your opinion is posted intelligently, it can still lead to larger problems for an individual if said opinion is unpopular. As it is employers look up potential or current employees on social media. We're all human. HR or your supervisor could definitely use something like what you post as an excuse to get rid of you, or favor someone over you in the workplace. That's the problem I see with it. On various message boards I never use the "Sign In With Facebook" option, or any other account they present as an option for me to sign in. I either create an account there, or I don't post at all.

Post: #12

(03-05-2013 03:28 PM)basilransom Wrote:  No. Anonymity is essential to airing true but unpopular opinions.

That said, if someone is being a troll, eg screaming slurs, the website should simply ban them. Have an automatic 'troll language detector' every time the word 'cunt' or 'nigger' appears, which bans the poster and prevents the post from getting through. I'm surprised there is no sophisticated language processor for online comments that filters out the troll posts - it's very easy to discern troll posts, imagine it's not that hard to ferret them out with software, compared to the difficulty of say, language translation.

Hell, I'd favor a Robot Grammar Nazi for this - if your post contains enough bad grammar, syntax, punctuation and spelling, your post will not be displayed. Most trolls write poorly, so this should be effective. Seriously think this is a brilliant, simple solution. If your IP address hails from a non-Anglophone country, or the site can tell your operating system or browser are in a foreign language, you might get a greater allowance for poor writing (but not too much, have to keep the IRTs out).

I think many sites have those filters that flag certain words, but there are easy ways around them by simply altering the spelling of certain words, but still conveying the intended meaning. I think many sites really don't want to devote a lot of energy to police this, so they're looking for the easiest way to make their jobs easier.

Post: #13

Well, if anonymity were gone, I'd certainly waste less time on the internet.

It'd be a fucking terrible can of worms over all. We could all log on to the net and see which of our kid's teachers loved triple penetration videos.

Post: #14

There's actually two relevant levels of anonymity online.

1. Alternate persona
2. Complete anonymity

The vast majority of bloggers and forum posters engage in discussions with an alternate persona. This affords them some insulation from real-life consequences and de facto censorship while still having some incentive to cultivate a positive reputation and make meaningful contributions. It's a great balance between freedom to say what you want, and incentive to make it thoughtful.

Unfortunately, for sites that can get tens of thousands of comments per article, where many of those commenters are going to comment just once and never again, alternate personas are really no different from pure anonymity.