Are Anonymous Comments Evil?
from the hell-no dept
This sort of debate comes up every so often among folks who run news/commentary sites, and it seems to have boiled over again recently, as a bunch of newspapers/blogging folks got into a nice little discussion on the goodness or evilness of anonymous comments. Not surprisingly, I side with Mathew Ingram on this one. Since we began, we've always allowed anonymous comments, and, for the most part, find that we've benefited tremendously from allowing that sort of level of speech.Does this mean we prefer people comment anonymously? Not at all. In fact, we try to encourage people to identify themselves in some manner, but we generally do so by providing greater and greater benefits for those who have verified accounts (with a lot more on the way). However, we recognize that there are times when there are benefits to having people comment anonymously, and we see no reason to take away those benefits.
Does this mean that people don't abuse this privilege? Again, not at all. However, it is actually quite rare that anonymous commenters abuse their ability to be anonymous. It does happen at times, and, in our opinion, there are ways to deal with this that don't involve banning anonymous commenters at all. Some of these methods we have not implemented yet, but we're working hard on them (and, yes, this blog post will hopefully act as a push to those doing the coding...).
Techdirt gets an awful lot of comments, and we've been at this for a long time. We've seen no evidence that anonymous comments, by themselves, are a problem. You can have an occasional annoying commenter at times, but on the whole, the quality of the discussions we see in the comments here is much better than on many other sites that do not allow anonymous comments, and seem to stall out with just a few comments on each story (even on sites that get a lot more traffic than us).
There is a bit of a balancing act that needs to go on. At times, people start demanding we moderate comments (when a particularly annoying commenter hijacks a thread, for example), but then, when a legitimate commenter accidentally gets his or her comment caught in our spam filter, suddenly they get angry and ask "how dare you moderate comments!" Of course, as we explain, if you have a legitimate comment and it gets caught, we free it up within a few hours. If your comment is blatant spam, however, it gets deleted -- and at times, we have noted that "pure trolling" is spam (i.e., comments that don't advertise anything commercial, but are so far off-topic that they are designed solely to send the discussion off-topic). We will never block commenters just because you disagree, however, no matter how wrong you might be or are anonymous. We did have an issue for a while, where our UI confused some commenters into submitting totally blank comments (which automatically get held as spam) because two submit buttons could be seen, and some people clicked the wrong one -- but we recently fixed the comment UI to solve this. Unfortunately, this did confuse some people, including some people who accused us of moderating legit comments, and we apologize for that UI confusion.
On the whole, we have a pretty great community of folks around here -- including those of you who I regularly disagree with. It makes for a fun conversation. Sure, every so often, an immature person tries to cause trouble, but those are few and far between, and it's not because they're anonymous, but because they're jerks. The vast majority of our anonymous commenters (even those we disagree with) add value to the conversation, and blocking them completely seems counterproductive.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
label anonymou commenters per story
One feature request:
Would it be possible to identify anonymous commenters per story? For example, the 1st anonymous commenter to a story would be labeled as "Anonymous Coward #1" for all posts relating to the that story. The 2nd anonymous commenter would labeled as "Anonymous Coward #2", etc.
It is frustrating to read the commentary and not know if the anonymous comments are coming from one person or from 20.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: label anonymou commenters per story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: label anonymous commenters per story
BTW, I am not advocating the listing of user IPs. Just using the IP address to create a unique nickname for the thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: label anonymous commenters per story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: label anonymou commenters per story
Yeah, we've toyed with that idea (or something similar). We'll likely put something like that in at some point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: label anonymou commenters per story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: label anonymou commenters per story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: label anonymou commenters per story
Respectfully,
AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: label anonymou commenters per story
Cool, I like that. I've got multiple computers and multiple addresses available to me, so I'll be able to have multiple identities that will all look legitimately different. If I were to try that the way things are now people would probably see right through it, but not with some kind of system in place to make it all look legit. Bring it on, this is going to be fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: label anonymou commenters per story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: label anonymou commenters per story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: label anonymou commenters per story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: label anonymou commenters per story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: label anonymou commenters per story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... ON-topic trolling is OK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Number of Comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Number of Comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Number of Comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evil Comments
But, behind a mask of anonymity they'll show you who they really are. If you want to know the truth, supply a mask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evil Comments
Or a helmet. They aren't just for respiratory regulation and drinking coffee while watching Mr. Radar anymore....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evil Comments
Best laugh I've had this week! Thanks man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It really annoys me when a blatant point is missed. It's not a question of who you actually are ("real full name, date of birth, home address, and phone number"), it's because you don't want something to be used against you.
I stand behind what I say, even if it's against popular opinion. You, however, are afraid that you "make statements that could be used against [you]".
Along with Cowboying up, grow up, and wake up too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh, talk about missing the point. If you really think that what you post "CAN'T be used against you", then post your ID. After all, it "CAN'T be used against you", if you believe it, can it? Or are you just another mouthy hypocrite?
Along with Cowboying up, grow up, and wake up too.
Still waiting for that ID. You gonna be a mouthy little hypocrite or a man?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous posting
I've not been here long. I came with the big toss up from ARSTechnia. When they deemed that blocking ads was somehow stealing from them, I granted them their wish and left both that site and Reddit who is also owned by Conde Nash. I feel all the pressure to present that side of the issue came from on high.
While I haven't and probably won't register, I do always give a nick to those that agree/disagree know they are talking to the same poster, whether we see eye to eye or not.
One of the reasons I have stayed is the polices in place here. In today's trace everything said on the net mentality of government, I'm not sure I want to give out addresses and at least would like to think they gonna have to work a smidgen to get that info rather than me hand it to them on a plate. It's not that I am up to anything in the sense of wishing and physically doing some one harm, it's the looking over your shoulder that gives me the willies. I keep feeling like we are sliding towards Nazism with our present directions.
So I support the Anonymous posts. Like others, I would like to know that whom I think a troll, is really just one and not many expressing the same idea. If it is many, then maybe my viewpoint on some issue is wrong and I need to reconsider my stance. If it is a single individual trying to sound like several, that gives validation to my thought.
Again, this is just my opinions and I am sure the rest of the community will have theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC First, register second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC First, register second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I AM SPARTACUS
I am evil homer
and what happens when you have a ACTA leak and htey come and arrest you for leaking it when you sign up you are pwnable
SO F U mister nosy pants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...says he, anonymously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reporting issues you "shouldn't" have found
Being anony-mouse can both be funny and/or useful (I've anonymously reported finding bugs on websites that even finding the issues sorta made me look like a 'hacker' {wasn't , just and observant coder} so just being able to report the issue without registering made it easier for me to help the site/community)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not worth it to fill out all the required fields with bogus information. It's not worth checking the email account I use for spam purposes to find the verification mail. It's not worth writing down the username and password, which because of unique constraints, will be different from every other site I've ever signed up for. It's not worth looking the username and password up again the next time I want to comment because my cookies have been cleared. Single sign-on solutions may have solved this, but they were a solution nobody wanted.
When a site's registration is too annoying, I just won't bother commenting. Luckily, Techdirt doesn't annoy me, so they get to bask in the glorious genius of the comments that I do supply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A step further
I sign all of mine (unless I forget) for a few reasons, including, but not limited to, A: I work at my own machine (assigned not owned), so it's easy to just stay signed in 24/7, and B: it's easier to agree/disagree with someone when you know who it is.
But here's the thing, what kind of a discussion are you having, anyway, if EVERYONE agrees?? I would say change those lines to read "ESPECIALLY those we disagree with". You're not going to change everyone's mind no matter how strongly you feel about an issue, but you might change SOMEONE'S; or they might change yours; but if you can't have a civilized debate over an issue, all you end up with is a bunch of pomp and/or a bitch session.
So if someone doesn't want to (or can't) sign their post, that just means you can get more points of view and therefore have a discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A step further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Anti-Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I actually enjoy signup proceses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would it mean if I did, and used some free throwaway email address to register with? Nothing, no proof of ID or assurance that I'm not a spammy scum sucker.
Demanding registration does not avoid anonymity, it's just a barrier that requires contributors care more than momentarily about submitting. It's a jdgement call if that's worth anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
Getting rid of anonymous speech may be appropriate under certain circumstances in part of the web, but is a bad policy for the internet as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Magic in the Forest
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor.
Also, I am not a Lawyer. Butt Do You? //so juvenile!
More Also: my third post here in roughly a year. //my ovarian friend has the, "privilege," of dicussing the insanity of the farce quit frequently. //it is all that cash!
How Many Could There Be: While remaining on topic, I felt this was a post that seemed like a, "free-for-all," sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Magic in the Forest
I was referring to Dr. Masnick. Someone whom I believe to not actually be a doctor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for letting us comment anonymously, I've never noticed how much I valued it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AND STICKS N STONES
NO?
Bad parents then.
That's right BAD PARENTS.
thats all this really is about
so what if theres bad posters , and dumb asses.
blah blah.
notice how TAM is now just posting as anonymous cause that scheme a mine to anti anti mike drove him right silly
have fun in your ways a dealing with a holes and they will get so mad as to either change a nick or leave entirely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would Ben say?
Not much has changed in ~250 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I posted what?
{have posted in thread previously}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a Hybrid
However, I always post under the same pseudonym so that people begin to understand where I'm coming from and the dialog can continue across multiple threads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to those who are lazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to those who are lazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The human animal
Anon is a fast way for interested users to join a discussion, and whether or not that gets abused is no different from any other tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is anti-mike by the way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are times when I like to make a comment that, for what ever reason, I do not want associated with good name. Maybe I just want to call someone an asshat or talk about some potentially embarrassing moment. Or maybe it just my alter ego talking while my brain is on vacation. In any case I like the option to post as an Anonymous Coward when I so choose.
I can understand why newpapers do it. Although I comment on one that allows me to change my username associated with the comment fairly easily. This has the added advantage that all my comments are still viewable from my one registered account even if I use different Names on the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happend to TAM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why anon is good...
As some others have mentioned: Often too lazy to sign in.
Other times, I go to a site I have not been to before, and would like to comment, but a lengthy sign-up isn't worth it.
And there are some things that can't be said without anonymity, that aren't just jerk comments.
I've even seen sites where I could not post a bug report without logging in. I'm all for helping, but I'm not a paid tester, so I don't want to have to jump through hoops to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am just too lazy to sign in,
That said, I only post under known coward, to have the sense of some constancy, but i get the idea of true anonymity, which our founding fathers supported. They also supported rum running, and other terrorist acts against the british, so they were just a bunch of outlaw ruffians anyway.
Now as a Federal prosecutor those kind of remarks could be career limiting. But as an anony mouse. I would be safe from the hackles of Ed Meeese limiting my career to cleaning pornographic statues.
Besides any idiot can post as known coward, not just this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's up with TAM
So Mike took the easy way out, labeled him as a "jerk" or "troll" and a gift of the ban from Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's up with TAM
Also, Mike's job isn't creating new articles, or even creating articles at all (this is a blog, and blogs have posts, lol). He's an analyst, not a writer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's up with TAM
So Mike took the easy way out, labeled him as a "jerk" or "troll" and a gift of the ban from Mike.
This is simply not true. TAM has not been banned in any way. No one has been banned. TAM went away, though in the last few weeks I believe that he has started commenting again anonymously (at a much lighter pace than in the past -- perhaps he finally got a job). Over the last few years TAM has come and gone under a variety of names, and at other times posts anonymously, but he usually shows up for a little while then disappears for a while, and then comes back later. But we most certainly did not ban him at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymity and pseudonymity
There have been many times when anonymity, or pseudonymity, has been a clear social good. The Federalist Papers were written under pseudonyms. St. Raphael of Brooklyn (the first Orthodox bishop consecrated in America) wrote under a pseudonym when criticizing the Greek dominance of the Patriarchate of Antioch. Authors for a variety of reasons have used noms de plume, as spies and guerilla leaders use noms de guerre.
Attacking anonymity and pseudonymity only seems to serve the interests of those who would threaten writers for what they write. It is far better to allow freedom loving people to hide behind a nom de plume (even using a blank space as such) than force them to adopt noms de guerre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowardly
Anonymity has its place, particularly in countries with bullshit laws, but how true is that in the Western World these days? For the most part Anonymous Cowards are just that - cowards. So often are they people who want to say mean or hurtful things and don't want others to know. You only need to read /. for a day to figure that out.
I personally stand by everything I write and never post anonymously. If you aren't willing to stand by what you say, even if unpopular, what does that say about your character? I pretty certain guys like Washington and Lincoln never wrote a word without taking responsibility for it.
I suppose that sounds rich coming from a guy who writes under a pen name, but you need only to go to my site to learn my real one (shameless promotion, oh noes).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cowardly
So, you wouldn't be too cowardly to post your full real name, date of birth, home address and phone number, would you? Oh, and aren't you the guy who also promotes underage drinking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cowardly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous comments
In my case I just hate creating accounts on every site I visit, although I read Techdirt every single day.
Anyway I agree with some of the comments pointing out that volume does matter and sometimes unpopular measures might be required in.
Keep it up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boy THAT's sure telling us. Sit the fuck down asshole. When we want your opinion we'll give it you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fuck me
In my case I just hate creating accounts on every site I visit, although I read Techdirt every single day.
Anyway I agree with some of the comments pointing out that volume does matter and sometimes unpopular measures might be required in.
Keep it up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cs
213.5.180.95:27015 jailbreak
213.5.180.96:27015 Zombie Plague
213.5.180.97:27015 de_dust2 Only
213.5.180.98:27015 Surf Deathmatch
213.5.180.99:27015 hide n seek
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK TV
As some others have mentioned: Often too lazy to sign in.
Other times, I go to a site I have not been to before, and would like to comment, but a lengthy sign-up isn't worth it.
And there are some things that can't be said without anonymity, that aren't just jerk comments.
I've even seen sites where I could not post a bug report without logging in. I'm all for helping, but I'm not a paid tester, so I don't want to have to jump through hoops to do it.
imran14826
http://www.livetv.pk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]