Anne Rice Battles Mean Anonymous Amazon Trolls, Ignores Fact Many Anonymous Users Add Great Value
from the baby-with-the-bath-water dept
Anne Rice appears to be taking a break from sexy rock and roll vampirism to take on a new form of monster: Amazon trolls. The author claims there's a growing wave of "bullying and harassment" of authors going on in the Amazon books reviews section, and as such she's started a new petition demanding that Amazon do something about it by eliminating anonymity entirely from user reviews. The move is necessary, Rice claims, because some people were once mean to her on the Internet when she was busy trying to help aspiring authors:"Then the bullies, trolls, jerks, whatever you want to call them, found the thread. That's when the attacks started happening. It got very ugly very fast … With each attack, Anne tried to diffuse the situation and out these people for what they are: bullies. Well, that just made them frenzy even more. Eventually, I left the thread. It got too ugly for me. Anne stuck it out for a while, but finally she called it quits, too."It sounds to me that Anne might be new to the Internet, and hasn't quite learned yet that it's unhealthy and pointless to spend too many calories battling (or feeding, as it were) the vitriolic troll hordes. Rice's complaints also seem to falsely believe that said trolls have started targeting authors in particular, as opposed to them simply enjoying getting a rise out of her. The assumption seems to be that people would be nicer if they weren't anonymous, which simply isn't the case if you've spent any amount of time around the general public. In the petition however, Rice argues that killing anonymity can change everything for the better:
"By removing their anonymity and forcing them to display their real, verified identities, I believe that much of the harassment and bullying will cease. It may continue elsewhere on the web, but not on Amazon, the largest online retail marketplace in the world, where it really counts. Buyers of products on Amazon must have their identities verified, so it should be an easy transition to implement a policy whereby reviewers and forum participants must also have their identities verified."There's a difference between Amazon needing better comment moderation (violence and the worst sort of miserable commentary being deleted more quickly, obviously) versus killing off anonymity in the belief it will somehow magically deliver elevated discourse. As we've long argued at great length, anonymity in online comments can actually benefit the website, community and the overall discourse immensely. For every "Hotstud77" making fun of your nose, there's someone who is using a nom de plume to potentially add something useful to the conversation they might not have been able to anyway (a publisher or author that has something to add, for example, but doesn't feel free to do so under their "brand" name).
Yes, opening your comments to the anonymous hordes results in lots of crazy comments, but it also results in plenty of excellent insight that might otherwise never see the light of day.
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
Filed Under: anne rice, anonymous speech, free speech, reviews
Companies: amazon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Meh
(See what I did there?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps they should get a better poster child for forcing real names... like that guy from Googl... er nevermind.
Perhaps it would be best for people to learn a simple concept.
You do not have some magical right to not be offended, you are not special. Attempting to control other peoples feelings and comments is as useful as selling out your novel to become a Dan Aykroyd Rosie O'Donnell vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Surely you're mistaken.. That would mean she's a hypocritical person who though can write extremely well has no freakin clue about anything else (and has major personality issues)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But ... that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with her for being sick of the trolling. Good for her for saying something (but the draconian measures sought here are absurd).
Every time somebody faults Rice for "being new to the internet" or "being a baby" etc it minimizes the acts by the bad actors (trolls); it shifts focus from the bad actors to a probably-well-meaning-but-ignorant-and-filled-with-self-importance actor (Rice); and discourages others who are sick of bad behavior from speaking up or doing something.
Issues aren't black & white, right?
Bad for her for her approach; good for her for not being complacent about crappy behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Minimizing their actions = condoning those actions.
Seeing some value in what she's done doesn't = supporting everything she does.
Nuance.
She sucks (ha) but so do the trolls. I'd rather ignore her and shame the trolls than vice-versa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
does it need to be said:
one person's troll, is another person's socratic interlocutor...
WHAT 'rules', 'guidelines', etc are YOU (since -like catching liars- you are apparently of the BELIEF you 'know a troll when you see one') going to set out for all us ignorati so we can kill the troll bastards ? ? ?
you can't, no one can, but gummints WILL given the support of non-thinking nekkid apes who just want the trains to run on time...
free your mind, its already jailed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm right about everything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This article is about "the vitriolic troll hordes" and Rice's response.
Not only did I not bring "troll" into the discussion, I certainly didn't make any attempt to describe what is (or isn't) a troll.
In the context of this discussion of this article, it is a GIVEN that trolls are a part of the conversation and it is a GIVEN that their behavior can be "vitriolic." Not because I-said-so but because the friggin' article says so (supra, FFS).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's not nuance at all. It's also not exactly true. Criticizing Rice for not knowing how to handle trolls is not minimizing the actions of trolls at all. Just as criticizing copyright law is not minimizing the actions of pirates. Even if it does minimize, though, minimizing is not condoning. If I say burglary is worse than shoplifting, that is (by this logic) minimizing shoplifting. It's not condoning it, though at all, though.
That's nuance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be more explicit: if, as appears to be the case here, Rice is the SOLE target of scorn, there is an implication that others involved have NOT engaged in anything deserving of scorn.
"If I say burglary is worse than shoplifting, that is (by this logic) minimizing shoplifting."
No.
If, as appears to be the case here, you were discussing a burglary (which somehow-magically-for-the-sake-of-argument occurred as a response to shoplifting) and that discussion revolves around the inherent bad-ness of burglary but fails to mention that the initial act of shoplifting is also bad, then you implicitly minimize shoplifting.
That doesn't mean that you believe that shoplifting is acceptable - only that you have made a decision as to what you are going to say and what you are not going to say; for some reason you have opted to not condone shoplifting even though shoplifting plays a critical role in your narrative.
And curious reader wonders "why would John opt to not condone shoplifting?"
"Maybe there was a word limit - maybe John has an aberrant version of auto-correct - maybe somebody made John omit it..."
The reason for the omission is left to that curious reader and this omission will be regarded by some as tacit acceptance.
So, rather than contribute to a misunderstanding that you somehow find shoplifting to be acceptable, maybe it's better to state your feeling about it in your initial discussion: "Y'know, not to excuse shoplifting, but burglary is worse."
BOOM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the same problem as when talking expressing my opinion that copyright law has become egregious. I used to add a disclaimer that my opinion doesn't mean that I am in favor of piracy, but have stopped for two reasons.
People who are inclined to make the illogical leap in thinking that condemning one thing means condoning another aren't going to be persuaded otherwise by a disclaimer.
More importantly, it doesn't even matter. Even if I really did believe the opposite of what I'm addressing is OK, that's not what I'm talking about so it's largely irrelevant to the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems this was Anne's time.
I always hate to see someone who has a speck of famous try to use that as a bully pulpit. It results in a net that is far less useful.
I personally am very glad for Mike's tolerance for anonymity. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. Call me crazy but I refuse to sign up, be folded, spindled, and mutilated all for someone else's profit. I won't pay that price to comment.
This is the reason why I no longer do more than read some articles from time to time at Torrentfreak. They've lost my commenting for sure, for better or worse. In addition I have very little readership loyalty to the site from lack of participation, unlike this site that I've set my homepage to. Had it been different it might have went the other way.
Anne needs to learn you don't control the trolls by firefighting them with gasoline. You ignore them and they will get tired and sulk away unless they have some other hidden purpose like you see here often enough in troll behavior. Tilting windmills won't win her any fandom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like you, I probably wouldn't post comments if anon was disabled here. In fact, I've stopped posting comments in a LOT of places that disabled anon comments, and I guess that's their loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, this site is unusually free of idiots and ill behaving kids. Very nice. Also, if Techdirt didn't support anonymity, I wouldn't feel good about participating here. Regardless of any benefits or lack thereof, it is simply the ethically correct policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Another one of my "just setting the record straight" comments I posted on Torrentfreak was quickly deleted, but about a year or so later an article appeared on Torrentfreak that covered about everything I had said (and agreed with the points I made) in that long-since-deleted comment.
But Torrentfreak seems to be typical of most sites, following the standard pattern of allowing maximum user freedom in its early years, and then gradually increasing the level of moderation (i.e., censorship) as the site's popularity (and amount of comments) increases while the average quality of user comments correspondingly decreases.
And that's what makes Techdirt so unusual. With most site owners, the "cuteness" factor normally wears off within a few years and they eventually get very tired of having to spend time dealing with such things as trolls picking fights and stirring up controversy, and respond by locking threads and getting quick with the "delete" button in an attempt to clean-up the site and encourage troublemakers to leave. It's a slippery slope that's often self-defeating.
On the other hand, sites that are not well-policed can turn into a troll haven that drives away many users, whether due to the trolls themselves or from the resulting anti-troll enforcement. (I've had to train myself not to be too complimentary, as I discovered this is often interpreted to be insulting sarcasm in some places). I've always ended up moving on if I start getting a lot of my comments deleted, even if it's (presumably) due to a mistake of some kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ばか。。。
If you truly believe that anonymity will kill trollish behavior, kindly look into a sports or political thread.
I can assure you that both are far more vitriolic than someone telling you to stop drinking blood like a parasite.
Yours sincerely,
Jay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who, After All, Is Anne Rice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute...
I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but in my sixty-plus years it has definitely been the case that anonymity frees people from social restraints. Often (but not always) they then use this freedom to act like total numb nuts in a flurry of antisocial behavior rather than contributing anything to public discourse.
A quick and dirty breakdown of online anonymous postings might work out as 15% trolls/jackanapes, 75% clueless, and only 10% actually contributing anything useful. So, yeah, there might be a 1:1 ratio between Hotstud77 and Socrates. Most comments, however, tend to be vapid and nescient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://boards.4chan.org/b/catalog
Enjoy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, things are NOT simple...
Step 1: Remove anonymity of posters/gain access to real IDs.
Step 2:
Step 3: Comments of greater maturity, seriousness, and, ultimately, value!
Of course, the vague, non-specific "process step" 2 is nothing other than the exercise or threat of real-world status, wealth, legal pressure and other resources which constitute REAL bullying, as opposed to the verbal kind which Ms. Rice finds so unacceptable.
I find it disturbing that so many well-intentioned folks, in the name of "internet civility", are eager to restore these irrelevant-to-discourse advantages to the powerful and famous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Over cooked Rice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She left this review on her own book in 2004. google it.
redacted cause she is an idiot(not a coward)
LOL... fan critics complained that she needed an editor. She post that*. People edit it (add paragraphs) to understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with Anne
You can't go into someone's place of business, with a mask on, and shout obscenities at them every day, because you'd be identified and charged with harassment. It should be no different on an online commerce-based website, where people also earn their living. It's one thing if people want to be trolls on an online forum, where people don't earn a living, but it's something entirely different to make insidious comments that have a negative impact on one's living. Anonymous troll comments would be reduced. Aspiring authors would stand a better chance of being able to earn a living as an author, if trolls were identified, because they'd be less able to hurt aspiring authors, the moment the newer author begins to gain some traction with their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree with Anne
It's all about the Benjamins isn't it. Let's carve out a niche for those with moneyed interests and allow them some special privileges because - you know - they are the makerz and the rest are all scumbag takerz - amirite?
People do not have a right to not be offended. It really is simple. The thin skinned whiny get attention and probably have since they were children. Some people never grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree with Anne
Forcing commenters to reveal their true identity would also allow the author -- or snakeoil salesman, scam artist, etc. -- to SLAPP the naysayer with a libel lawsuit if they refuse to apologize and make amends.
Some merchants might not even want an apology, but would rather exploit a lucrative business model -- Prenda style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rights of the trolls are your rights too
Alternatively, it would require everyone to post using their real names(and the process of verifying such, to keep people from putting just any random name would require sharing a lot more personal details than I, and many others, would feel like sharing), just in case they turn troll later.
Also, and this is a very important problem with your suggestion that sites should 'protect sellers' from comments that 'hurt their business', who, exactly, gets to make that determination? A review absolutely trashing a book as a piece of crap is likely to be seen by the author and their fans as 'trolling' after all, and is quite likely to harm future sales, whereas the one who wrote it could simply be giving their honest impression of what they thought of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The rights of the trolls are your rights too
Nobody has an obligation to protect the sales potential of any item, ever.
I appreciate being able to post anonymously as I'm posting from work during breaks. Having to use my real name would create a huge chilling effect on my posting here because I'd have to temper my opinion - or not post at all to avoid upsetting my employers' sensibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verified ID
Does she want Amazon to do what Huffington Post did and force you to use your 'verified' Facebook ID. You can get one of those by giving Facebook your cell phone number. No thanks, I'm not crazy. I get enough crap in my email. I don't need it on my phone.
Yes, I stopped posting on the HuffPost, and it appears a lot of other regulars did too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anne Rice Comment
1. The romantic viewpoint that the Internet is the 1997 freedom inspired outlay to society is patently outdated and wrong. Most of it has evolved into a commercial necessity no different than any city main street or highway. While no site should be mandated to deny anonymity, it would be in Amazon's best interest to force real names. Amazon is a business first. Let trolls open up their own domains and anonymously kvetch about anything they want, all they want, but stop clogging up commercial thoroughfares.
2. The stats are wrong. "For every Hotstud77" there is a "someone.. to add something useful" is nonsense. There are thousands of Hotstuds per "someone.. useful" and their numbers make the forum unusable. Additionally, if the "useful someone" is unable to reveal themselves then their usefulness is questionable. Their name is their ethos and by extension the usefulness of the comment.
Anonymity is not cowardice, but I don�t know of any true revolutionary that did not boldly paint their cause with their real face and name.
IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anne Rice Comment
On to the points though...
While no site should be mandated to deny anonymity, it would be in Amazon's best interest to force real names.
And then watch a massive number of people who aren't trolls but don't want to use their real names suddenly stop reviewing products entirely. Yeah, that'll be a big help. /s
Additionally, if the "useful someone" is unable to reveal themselves then their usefulness is questionable.
Say for the sake of argument that I don't believe that you're using your real name currently(I really don't care either way, but for this example I'll pretend it matters). Does that mean I should dismiss your comment entirely, since you're not willing to 'sign' your post with your real name, backed by evidence that it is your real name?
The answer is, or should be, 'Of course not'. Who cares what someone calls themselves online, the only thing you should concern yourself is how they present themselves and the validity of their comments/arguments.
Also, as far as 'real names' go, what's to stop someone from just making something up? If people can just put down whatever name they like(like they currently can), then nothing's changed.
If however you have to verify your name somehow, then you've got some other, rather large problems to deal with... In particular, the process needed to 'verify' that someone is who they say they are would require handing over a lot of very personal information to a third party, something many people would rather not do, especially these days, and especially to 'combat' a problem that is able to be managed without such drastic measures, via reports, downvotes and the like.
Anonymity is not cowardice, but I don�t know of any true revolutionary that did not boldly paint their cause with their real face and name.
Thomas Paine might disagree with you on that one, though it's not like he ever wrote anything important, so it's not like he counts.
Also, and perhaps more to the point, why in the world are you suddenly comparing internet trolls to revolutionaries? You give those people way more credit and importance than they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anne Rice Comment
"Additionally, if the "useful someone" is unable to reveal themselves then their usefulness is questionable"
I give you Evan Stone, Prenda, Malibu Media, and a host of smaller copyright trolls my anonymous comments helped stop/hurt.
I give you 6 Strikes, where I helped with bits and pieces of the full story.
Yes I am a flaming ass, I troll with the best of them, but to pretend I've never contributed a single thing is dishonest on your part or calls into question your ability to ignore things that don't support your narrative.
Yep no revolutionary ever... Who was that Poor Richard asshole anyways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anne Rice Comment
Oooh, oooh! I know! Benji Franklin, father of the $100 bill. (And, ironically, the only thing that really matters to Anne Rice and her followers. The money.) Oh, and he was also some revolutionary dude who authored some important pamphlets for the American colonies using a (wait for it!--->) pseudonym. Amiright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anne Rice Comment
The world is full of anonymous revolutionaries of all kinds, and always has been. I'll name just one example of anonymous heroism that's recently been in the news: the Vietnam-era "hippie" activists who broke into the FBI headquarters and leaked COINTELPRO, and then kept their identities secret for another 40 years after the Statute of Limitations had expired and they were free from prosecution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/burglars-who-took-on-fbi-abandon-shadows.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anne Rice Comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anne Rice Comment
As to Anne Rice and her claims of trolls, I'll believe it when I see it. She has a long history of freaking out anytime someone dares to question her genius. I keep hearing about these awful, terrible trolls, yet I've never seen a single link to prove it.
Either way, taking away the anonymity of millions of customers, just to stop a few bad apples is like using a missile to swat a gnat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anne Rice Comment
Implying the inverse that an idea is more important because that person said it. Oh you!
Implying I can't go into a shop and complain about a dodgy product without first showing my papers. Oh you!
Anne Rice is WRONG.
She is the one who started berating fans who criticized her latest book. (10 years ago)
As for the "romantic viewpoint". You mean an attempt at a meritocracy. The web is for everyone. The internet is ours.
Fuck it... Someone wants to sell shit.
The internet is only for those who pay. The web is only for those with an ID. Ideas are rated by who said them.
EVERY OPINION is a "troll" to someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She has been whining about the negative reviews for years, so I am not convinced this is even about internet trolls. She even spent a lot of time last year chastising reviewers who gave Charlaine Harris's last book a 1-star review simply because they hated the ending.
And what an insanely stupid idea of giving the vendors and authors access to the customers real identities. You just have to remember the article Techdirt ran last month about the insane vendor Hannah's Attic to know what these authors really plan to do with that information. And it is not about building a more civil internet.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140211/18593326191/crazy-amazon-seller-threatens-wrath-scientolo gy-people-who-give-negative-feedback.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why real-name commenting doesn't work
Real Name policies are simply unenforceable. Show me a site that requires a �Real Name,� and I�ll introduce you to Riot.Jane or another online persona. Generating a burner web mail account and online persona are not a challenge to a determined troll. It�s also not a challenge to a non-troll like me who simply doesn�t want prospective hiring managers or HR departments Googling me and finding out non-job-related opinions. Yes, they�re not allowed to use that sort of thing against me in a hiring decision, but I�d never know if it was done in order to bring the law into play. There�s more than one reason I blog pseudonymously, but that�s the primary reason.
Real Name policies are an extremely poor substitute for quality moderation, moderators, and moderation policies. Quality effective comment moderation involves more than searching for curse words or wielding the almighty [Delete] key. Media presences open comment forums ostensibly to have a conversation with their readers but then don�t hold up their end of the conversation! Moderators need their own forum-active personas, and they need to be willing and authorized to implement clear and productive moderation policies that are both publicly posted and extend beyond the [Delete] key. Moderators should be speaking up, calling out trolls, redirecting the conversation when needed, and filling in the conversation holes that trolls exploit. When the [Delete] key must be invoked, they need to explain why it was invoked; nothing inflames trolls like apparently capricious persecution. Stop slacking here!
Early commenters set the tone of a conversation. Once a negative tone has been set, it�s well-nigh impossible to redirect a conversation. Once your comment forums have devolved into a cesspool, don�t even try to recover them. Close them. Post-mortem what went wrong. Develop a moderation policy to address what went wrong (consider reaching out to other organizations with the kind of comment forums you�d like to have and asking them how they accomplish it). Re-train or replace your moderators and give them the authority to accomplish #2 above. Try opening up comments again. See how things go. Lather, rinse, repeat until you get it right.
Somehow, The Economist has a robust non-trolled comments section that doesn�t require real names. People disagree there constantly, but they are troll-free. How do they do it? Quality moderation. Someone at HuffPo really should call them and ask how they�re doing it or find out what consultant they used. Every corporate site should look to The Economist for the comment forum Gold Standard.
Online anonymity has important social benefits. As a culture, we will pay a price for eradicating it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about libel....
It's not about "freedom" or "honest discourse." It's about a bunch of anonymous cowards doing their best to hurt the sales of authors they don't like by lying about them. ie libel. And *that* is actionable in court.
You can damn well bet that fear of a libel lawsuit will keep a troll in check when he's required to back up his vitriol with his own name.
More power to Anne Rice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's about libel....
She argues with people (FANS) who post valid criticism. The reviews are from fan critics who don't like the ending or that a character done this. They don't like the "new" writing style etc.... Go read them for yourself.
Judge for yourself. Stop being a parrot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's about libel....
Interesting
I was unaware that expression of one's opinion was considered libel. When sis this occur?
In the past, the word libel referred to a false statement communicated to others resulting in some form of harm to some reputation. So I find it of interest that this is no longer the case. Please elucidate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's about libel....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's about libel....
Any author who believes otherwise hasn't been around the internet long, because that is what authors and their rabid fans have been doing for years every single time the author vents their anger over a reviewer. And much of this is happening OFF of Amazon, which they would not be able to control.
I don't doubt that stopping anonymity would curb the number of hurtful reviews, but it will never stop them. And the damage of such a policy would be far fewer honest reviews on nearly all products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's about libel....
Mark, please do provide an example, as proof has yet to been shown on any of the sites discussing this petition.
If (and I do mean 'if') an author has a true case of a libel, there are legal steps they can take. Sites like Amazon can be forced to reveal the identity information they have on file, and cooperate with law enforcement. However, most authors supporting this petition know they do not have a legal case of libel so this step will never work for them.
If you read the comments and blogs supporting the petition, you quickly realize it is not motivated by those who want the legally defined libelous comments and attacks stopped (which, honestly, are very rare). This petition is far more about protecting the authors feelings, and squashing the legally allowed 'opinions' that stings or might hurt their sales. It is also about removing the gap between the real person and the anonymous name so authors can take justice into their own hands, and behave equally or worse towards a real person.
Bad-but-legal reviews are nearly always the catalyst to the author/reviewer problem. When we hear about an author raging mad about a reviewer, one can always find two things: 1) a bad review (the opinion), and 2) an author trying to 'fix' the review (arguing with them in the comment section, emailing the reviewer asking/demanding they remove it, or venting in public trying to shame the reviewer). I have seen this happen HUNDREDS of times.
It is no secret that Anne Rice and many others authors take to their Facebook page, blogs and forums to publicly single out and vent their anger over a negative reviewer, which nearly always ends with their lynch mob attacking the reviewer. But none of the 'author ventings' I saw were ever about a legal case of 'libel'. (Again, I ask you for proof).
And while we are speaking of libel, the forum thread Anne Rice uses as her reasoning for the petition had no cases of libel. She only refers to that thread as having trolls and bullies, and if you read the thread (as I have) you will see she engaged for weeks with people who simply shared opinions of which she did not agree with. Her behavior should be accountable too, which she fails to take responsibility for. She is (once again) taking the roll of the victim.
So sorry, I don't believe for one second this is about libel. Any real case of libel toward an author has yet to be shown, and what is readily shown is what most internet users refer to simply as 'butt hurt'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meet Anne Rice: Internet newbie
Only newbies whine about trolls.
Only newbies whine that something much be done!!
Only newbies whine about being criticized, parodied, satirized, and lampooned.
Only newbies whine in their weakness and cowardice, in their unwillingness to simply install a spine and deal with it.
I think the solution here is simple, Anne: get off the Internet. We don't need you. You won't be missed. Really, log off and stay off. Forever. You are expendable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This profile will be used for their profit and your detriment. And it's entirely removed from your knowledge, consent and review.
The next step is that this online profile is linked to your shopping habits through your use of loyalty cards and your cell phone records and your TV viewing habits and so on endlessly. Your entire life becomes an open book to government and business.
This is why you don't want to use your real name on the internet any more than you absolutely have to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Further, I see no evidence whatsoever that removing anonymity would reduce trolling. In forums where nobody is anonymous, I see the same trolling as I see anywhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My hero!
Worse than a paper cut are the vicious comments of a faceless Internet troll and/or grammar nazis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relevent XKCD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A truly anonymous post is when the site receives no information about the person posting, so everyone is in the dark. But Amazon requires a full user account with a lot of personal information, and nearly all accounts are attached to a credit card. This is a lot more personal information than pretty much all social sites on the internet today gathers.
So if any of these authors ever did have legal cause to know a persons real identity, they would hit a jackpot of personal information about them. Of course, as was mentioned earlier, the author needs to take the legal roads to get to this information. Amazon is not going to freely serve that information up lightly.
What I assume she MEANT to request was the end of pen names, which Amazon simply would never be able to enforce. Not when you can open an Amazon account with a burner email address and an Amazon gift card. How could that possibly verify a persons real name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The person reviews a lot of dystopia, and the text of the person's reviews reveals a generally skeptical view of government and big corporations. Thanks to Amazon's new Anne-Rice inspired real-name policy, the reviewer uses his real name.
Then said real-name non-troll reviewer needs a new job, badly, to support his family. He shaves his beard, puts on a conservative blue suit and shows up for the interview with a Big Evil Corporation. Big Evil Corporation takes a look at the Amazon profile, and decides to choose another candidate who would "fit in better with our corporate culture."
If we are forced to use real names online, that might be okay for conventional people whose choices in books, clothes and movies raise no eyebrows--maybe these choices even seem comforting and appealing to employers since they are so mainstream and 'not weird.'
But for the rest of us--those of us who are rebels, gay, counterculture or even just independent thinkers-- a real name policy online backs us into a corner. We have to either remain silent online or, worse, or change who we are to conform to the public image we may need to maintain in order to put food on the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]