Disappeared News

“…Anonymous speech has always been an integral part of free speech because it enables individuals to speak up and speak out when they otherwise may find reason to hide or self-censor. Behind the veil of anonymity, individuals are more free to surface honest observations, unheard complaints, unpopular opinions…”—Electronic Frontier Foundation

The Sun Chronicle has taken steps to block comments not in line with its posted commenting policy. The ability to comment anonymously was abandoned by the paper on Sunday with an announcement beginning:

The opportunity to post comments on stories on Sun Chronicle websites will be restored this week, Publisher Oreste P. D'Arconte announced today, with posters required to use their real names.

To enforce this change, all posters will be required to register their name, address, phone number and a legitimate credit card number.

The credit card will be charged a one-time fee of 99 cents to activate the account.   [Sun Chronicle, The Sun Chronicle restores commenting section to website, 7/4/2010]

Comments posted to their website will henceforth include the full name of the commenter and the town where they live. The 99 cent charge is no paywall, since it is a one-time fee and site content remains freely available to anyone. If anyone posts to their website, that person’s neighbors (and everyone else) will know who said what.

The Sun Chronicle is not, of course, the first to take this path.

The paper was reacting to the sad state of discourse on their wide-open website. Like similar newspaper websites, where delivering eyeballs to advertisers is often a consideration, the paper apparently determined that its website had become a polluted swamp (my words). In reaction, it shut off comments entirely at first.

Cutting off comments effectively drains the swamp but does nothing for advertising revenue, of course. Aside from that consideration, the same problem plagues websites and blogs unaffiliated with newspapers and whether or not they carry ads. It seems that there are sufficient numbers of trolls and flamers out there to pollute any open website that allows them in. Nor is there is a shortage of welcoming sites. Shut out from one, they move on to another.

“Alice” notes on SkyBluePink that the trolls would probably be incredibly embarrassed if their comments were identified with them. That’s how the Sun Chronicle approach works. The rude, profane or otherwise irresponsible commenters will have to go elsewhere to have their fun.

Snipping from the middle of her article:

That said, I honestly believe that anonymity serves an important purpose online. It allows people to express opinions that they would otherwise be afraid to express. It allows people to explore things that they would otherwise be fearful of exploring.

Imagine, for example, a health oriented website where someone wasn’t able to ask for advice anonymously. Or someone in an abusive situation not being able to anonymously explore how to gain the strength needed to remove themselves from that situation. [SkyBluePink, “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength”…, 6/6/2010]

(The article refers to a relevant panel discussion located here.)

It’s easy to imagine that in a small town setting, people might be fearful to express themselves even on mundane political matters for fear of retribution.

In Hawaii, the ability to comment anonymously on the current civil unions controversy may be the only opportunity someone may have to express themselves without fear of retaliation from an employer, for example. Anonymity also protects those in government who wish to reveal matters that their supervisors want kept secret from the public.

“Alice” wisely concludes:

So yes..a true double edged sword. And I for one certainly don’t have the answers.

There are many tools that websites use to permit yet control anonymous comments. The most common is moderation. That is, a human being reviews and approves or deletes each comment. This can be overwhelming on a high-traffic site, especially at first. The trolls come back doubly vicious when their comments are first denied. Eventually, they move on to another playground, but new ones appear to replace them. 

Another technique is community rating. While effective in the end, obnoxious comments remain until they are voted off the website, which encourages some trolls to keep at it.  Finally, one can just turn off comments completely.

Other websites, without moderation or community rating, seem to allow open posting of comments yet avoid the troll problem somehow.

Another approach has been taken by Metafilter, For a one-time charge of $5, and after a one-week waiting period, those who sign up get complete use of the site, including the ability to post to the home page. Even before the week is up, the user can post comments. There are guidelines for posting. Metafilter is not a news site, but news articles are fair game.

I see that anonymity is protected by the use of a self-selected username. Metafilter requires payment of the $5 fee via PayPal, but after that a regular password is all that’s needed to log in. The one-week delay allows users to learn the customs of the site while waiting for full access. Parts of the site contain adwords or other advertisements.

Metafilter is a complex undertaking as revealed by their comprehensive FAQ page. Any site offering news, whether national or local, could take a similar but simpler approach.

Most likely the trolls (like rude or aggressive drivers) will always be with us, at least as long as we value anonymity. And we should:

“Today the man who is the real risk-taker is anonymous and nonheroic. He is the one trying to make institutions work.”— John William Ward

Permalink posted by Larry @ 7/09/2010 12:10:00 PM