“I really don’t think you should allow commenting by anonymous commenters.” –Martin Edic.
“I agree with Martin Edic. Anyone commenting should identify themselves.” –James Bearden.
“I also agree that City Newspaper does a disservice to its readership by posting anonymous comments.” – Larry Champoux.
Let me take time off this week from giving you my opinion and ask for yours: What do you think about anonymous comments on our website and in our reader Feedback column?
Many of what used to be called letters to the editor carry the writer’s name, whether they’re land-mail submissions or postings on our website. But an increasing number do not. And that’s particularly true of the online comments, where my guess is that more than half are posted anonymously.
Many of us, myself included, feel far more comfortable with comments whose writers are willing to sign their names. But the internet has brought a different culture to public discussions, for good or for ill (and I think it’s both).
The idea is that the internet is freewheeling, informal, and hyper-public and that media websites can serve as limitless town squares, where people can get up on soap boxes and rant, gather in small groups to discuss everything from important public issues to the latest bar opening, and slap up anonymous flyers proclaiming… whatever they like.
The downside, of course, is that people do exactly that, posting rambling, nonsensical comments; racist comments; personal attacks on other readers.
One way to stop that is to require readers to register before they can post a comment. But that can make the process cumbersome, eliminating the spontaneity. Another solution: require readers to post their comments through Facebook or to post them with a real name rather than an alias. But that assumes that every poster is being truthful.
And given the increasing privacy concerns about the internet, some readers are simply unwilling to make their names public online.
Our solution here has been to allow anonymity but to moderate all comments. Our editors review the posted comments regularly, and we delete offensive ones. While that’s time consuming, we want to do what we can to encourage reader interaction and discussion. We’re getting more comments now than we did pre-website, and the online posts are frequently some of the most interesting and most informative we receive.
Still, we wrestle with the issue of anonymity. And after reading the posts I quoted at the beginning of this piece, I added a comment noting that our staff was discussing our policy. In response came these posts:
“Do people who value privacy have nothing to contribute to a ‘serious discussion about contemporary topics’? An idea or argument should stand or fall on its merits, not on the biography or personality or popularity of the speaker.” – Proudly Anonymous While We Still Can.
“I certainly stand behind my point of view. However in this debate, I could lose my job and pension because of my honesty. Not to mention, as close as Buffalo, unions still resort to violence for what they call ‘scabs.’ How’s that for freedom of speech? There are other debates this country desperately needs to have, like the one about race. Unfortunately we can’t, even with a black president. I am a person who does look at all sides of an issue before making up my mind. After all, here I am reading and commenting on a newspaper that makes my blood boil. If you’d like to shut down all debate, that’s fine; it’s your paper. But what would you gain in the end?” – Johnny.
All of these posts were on a guest column about the value of unions, and “Johnny’s” anonymity may be understandable. We also hear frequently from teachers about school district concerns. They might not comment if they had to sign their name.
So who is right? Edic, Bearden, and Champoux? Or Proudly Anonymous and Johnny? If we blocked anonymity, would we gain more than we would lose?
We’d love to hear from you.
This article appears in Mar 19-25, 2014.
I personally would prefer not to create yet another account, as I already have 10 million…
It is time to end anonymous comments. It IS important where the comments come from. Ray Levato puts his name at the end. So does Mary Anna Towler and everyone else at City Newspaper.
If it is worth saying it IS worth signing.
Remember the article about the “anonymous” package sent to the D&C about Van White’s problems. What irrelevant nonsense it all turned out to be.
City Newspaper should be taking the moral high ground here.
Give me anonymity or give me death! The Democrat & Chronicle did away with anonymous comments and only allows them from those with Facebook accounts. The result was pretty much the end of all comments. Bob Lonsberry allows anonymous comments and has no problems.
Many people can’t use their own names because of possible repercussions with friends, family and at their workplace. Editors will need to monitor comments but it’s a small price to pay for stimulating and meaningful discussion.
My only suggestion would be to have some simple rules for pseudonyms: Don’t use real names of politicians, celebrities and the like. It detracts from the comments by implying the named person would support a position, or it attempts to damage someone’s good name.
City Newspaper is encouraging people to betray their friends and employers. This type of venting may make someone feel better, but it’s not right.
There are lots of people out there pretending that they are NOT somebody. How do I have meaningful conversations with them?
There are two main reasons why I dislike this anonymity:
Political: The growing anonymity and secrecy in American culture is dangerous for democracy, whether it is City’s online comments or large anonymous PACS funded by contributions from anonymous uber-wealthy conservatives or secret surveillance of American’s online habits. The overall impact of this secrecy is to increase a culture of fear, and of the need to remain anonymous. Our democracy is dependent on the power of individuals to stand openly before other individuals to say, “This is what I believe. What do you believe?” But now we see this anonymity creeping into the realm of government via Patty Malgieri’s alleged involvement in some creepy mailings. Is it wrong for her, but not wrong for us? What kind of America and government do we want?
Personal: Look, I approach this as an openly gay man, who in the very distant past decided to connect my name and my face to the most personal aspects of my soul and being, despite whatever hatred awaited me. And I have discovered, as have so many of my friends, that this disclosure is a life-affirming and spiritually positive decision with unanticipated rewards and recognitions. And that courageous collective action of so many in my community is transforming our society for the better. So why would I want to be anonymous now, when disclosure has done so much good for me and for my community?
Anonymous posters: I suggest you look inside and break out of your own closets, constructed of whatever fears you have assembled there and participate fully in our open American society that is so critical for us to protect.
Actually, a cornerstone of democracy is the secret ballot — i.e., it is universally held that democracy depends upon the power of individuals NOT to have to declare themselves publicly.
In any event, conflating a web site’s comments policy with NSA snooping and PAC donor disclosure seems a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.
You’re free to disapprove of private people, and to urge them to be more like you. The question, however, is whether their views must be excluded.
BDG, I don’t disapprove of private people, but you are not really being private. You are commenting in a public arena. If you want to be private, stay private. I suspect that what some anonymous commenters want in fact is to take no responsibility for their comments.
And there are other options for you. You can start an anonymous blog. You can go to craigslist or some other similar site. You can express your opinions in your private circle of friends. Or send your comments to whatever politicians you think should hear them. But don’t pretend that you are being private when all who read City News online can see your comments. That is public.
(Democracy has several corners upon which stones must be laid.)
This is an interesting and important discussion. As I write this, I am sorting out my support for or against anonymity in posting comments. By the time I reach the end of this post, I’ll have to decide if/how I’ll sign my contribution to the discussion.
I will start by agreeing with Proudly Anonymous when s/he said: “An idea or argument should stand or fall on its merits, not on the biography or personality or popularity of the speaker.” Knowing who said something may add context to the statement, but the “who” should not supersede the “what” in our decision on whether to accept or reject the point being made.
Along that line, I think we need to be careful in attributing a rationale to someone’s decision on associating his/her name with an opinion. Fear and courage, risk and benefit are very personal conditions. While I try to empathize, it’s impossible for me to know the personal circumstances that lead to the decision on signing a post. From that perspective, I won’t judge the content on the basis of the person’s choice on disclosing her/his identity.
I am personally disturbed by the increase in vitriolic commentary, but I don’t see an absolute correlation between tone and anonymity. I’ve seen logical and respectful comments made by unnamed contributors (some examples are in this thread) and I have seen people willing to add their names to hateful and hurtful statements.
After all that, it seems I’m more inclined to judge a person based on their statements than I am to judge a statement based on who said it.
Let anonymous continue to post comments. I will continue to ignore them.
I ignore comments by anonymous because they are the worda of cowards who have more to hide than they have comments to express.
A large part of why I visit this site and read City Newspaper articles is to read the comments. I used to visit 13wham quite often, but once they removed the ability to comment, I stopped. The quality of discourse on the D & C website took a huge dive once they required facebook login. I believe that allowing anonymous comments lets readers share information and insight that they would not feel safe/comfortable sharing if they had to disclose their identifty. There is value in this information, and it’s up to me as reader to sift through and make that determination. I frequent this site, I would visit much less frequently (if at all) if the ability to comment anonymously were taken away. Frankly, I’m more concerned about sweeping generalizations and name calling that some of your courageous (named!) readers employ…
I speak as a person who was a target of a terribly mean-spirited diatribe of completely unfounded and hateful commentary on TOPIX some years ago. At the time, I was an organizing leader opposing a big-box development proposed within an area zoned exclusively for residential development and farming. Our community was divided in a very public debate. Many of the comments were horribly offensive and it is difficult to understand how any person can stoop to such a lowly level, even when protected by the cloak of anonymity. Although consideration of the sources made it easy to disregard such behavior, I do not feel that such commentary fostered anything constructive. To the contrary, it served to detract from a worthwhile debate as emotions heightened over irrelevant drivel.
Yet, as Mary Anna points out in “Our anonymous comments,” there are many instances when individuals can and will contribute constructive opinion when they do not feel that their employment, friendships or other important standings may be threatened or even harmed because their identity is protected.
Thus, I prefer that an avenue for anonymous comment be kept alive, so long an investment in prepublication editorial review is possible. A ‘managed’ forum will foster spontaneous participation and will permit the airing of many opinions but also provides a mechanism to snuff out personal attacks and other worthless rude, crude or just plain inappropriate content that may detract from productive discussion.
Thank you for seeking input on this timely topic.
Newspapers should not assume that all commenters have Facebook accounts. I don’t have one.
I sign comments with my real name, but if City Newspaper set up their online comments like the D&C, I would stop submitting comments. Therefore, I withdraw my earlier position to eliminate the anonymous comments.
Also, I’m now realizing that there are many different legitimate reasons for wanting anonymity. My only hope is that the increasing numbers that go anonymous unnecessarily, can be encouraged to change.
I am always drawn toward comment sections to know what people are thinking and to read other points of view. Just as often I am repulsed by them when comments descend into personal attacks or wild flights of illogic or ideologue.
But experience has shown me that neither helpful discussion, nor useless rant and drivel are exclusive to either the anonymous or to the public contributor.
Therefore, and for the added reason that contributors can fear retribution, job threat, etc., I accept the annoyances (or worse) that allowing anonymous commenters poses, in trade for the great value that anonymous contributors sometimes add.
Often, the people who need to remain anonymous are the ones we need to hear from most. For example, a person who is mentally ill and has great insight into the mental health system, but doesn’t want their workplace to know of their illness. Or someone who works in a political office, but doesn’t want to jeopardize their job. Or someone who was a former addict, or who was in an abusive relationship, or who live s in poverty. It’s not who said it that’s important, it’s what’s being said. If we are only to hear only from the people who sign their name, then we are potentially shutting out voices that need to be heard. To ignore them is akin to censorship, and is the very opposite of what the internet is all about.
I find it troubling that someone would think of poverty as a shameful condition. A super rich CEO escaping a nosediving company with a golden parachute is someone I would expect to be wanting to hide under a rock.
Furthermore, victims that need real help are not going to be able to get it by going online with their story while remaining anonymous. They should be emboldened enough to contact the police or some other agency with all the information, INCLUDING their name.
I am concerned that some people are erroneously assuming that the anonymous contributors are downtrodden in some way. I suspect that it’s the opposite that is true. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for someone with a well-known name to use a psyeudonym.
I think the conversation on unions would have been badly one-sided without the psyeudonym using regulars. I do understand how unfair it seems for one side to be able to speak with impunity while the others always must consider their reputation.
This is a complicated and important issue. It would be wise to spend more time on it.
My mentioning “poverty” was not to imply that it’s a “shameful condition”. That was poor wording and lazy writing on my part. I simply meant that people who are perhaps not comfortable talking about their lives, for whatever reason, often have the greatest insight into a problem. Perhaps I should have posted that anonymously, because always on the internet, someone will misconstrue your good intentions! Frankly, I feel this argument is a tad elitist. Only people who are willing to go public get to air their views? Yes, the internet is a public forum, which is precisely why some people wish to protect their privacy. There are many legitimate reasons why people prefer to remain anonymous. And putting up with obnoxious posts, which will be moderated anyway, is the price of internet democracy.
“If it is worth saying, it is worth signing.” I respectfully disagree. Let me give you an example. I have bipolar disorder. This is no secret and it’s not something I’m ashamed of. I will come out on internet forums about my illness, but it’s not something I want published on City’s Letters to the Editors page. People have prejudices about the mentally ill and the poor (thus my ‘poverty’ comment upthread). As a freelance writer, I would not want potential clients to have the wrong perception. So when City did an article on the mental health system a while back, I had great insight into the system, but I chose to remain silent. I didn’t know I could post anonymously, so I didn’t contribute to the discussion, By insisting that people use their names, we are effectively silencing others who DO have something worthwhile to say, but for whatever reason, need their privacy protected.
I’m sorry I responded to you the way I did. I thought your comment was very well written, the best. Believe me, I have my own mental health issues so I can empathize. I would actually like to continue this discussion with you in private, but I don’t exactly know how to do it. Ask Ms. Towler for my email address, if you want. I’m on Twitter @earlrize_mike, but I’m not sure how much personal information I should be revealing.
Again, I’d really like to hear more from you on this, but in private.
Commenting anonymously, or with a pseudonym, is an ancient tradition that will outlive City, and maybe even the internet. Anyone challenging gender, race, religious, or economic power status quos may do it at great personal cost. In a different time or place, they could have even been in danger of their lives for speaking truth to power. City and its comment readers will never know if a pseudonym is being used, so the paper won’t be able to enforce the naming requirement. Graffiti is known to proliferate in proportion to the degree of repression present in a society. Increase in the amounts of anonymous commenting might be a related phenomenon. If a comment has some truth to it, it shouldn’t matter how it is signed, and probably shouldn’t be ignored.
I seldom comment anonymously. I am retired and cannot be harmed by possible repercussions that way. I reconsider what I write before I post because I know I will attach my name to it, usually. I argued with MATowler about moderating the comments until I looked at unmoderated comments sections which permitted anonymous posting, ugh!
I post in many forums under the handle “xctraveler” but anyone interested can go to the profile section and learn my name. The options as I see it are to ban anonymous posting in which case many people will create pseudonym accounts or to moderate the postings. In either event only the publisher has freedom of speech and that is as it should be and as the constitution intended. Anyone can begin their own publication if they want unmuzzled freedom to rant on.
This Thomas Jefferson quote pretty much sums up how I feel about this issue: “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
Facebook doesn’t allow anonymity. A trend (growing?) in online comment sections is for Facebook to verify a person’s identity. The result that I’ve seen, is that the contents of the comments are so watered down, they are meaningless. And the name and photo of a person is pretty much useless since practically nobody knows who they are anyway. The reader gets to participate, but fear, via the Facebook connection stifles any real discourse.
I’m not on Facebook, but if it’s causing people to be afraid to freely express themselves, then I don’t understand how this is good for liberty.