Thread: Anonymous Online Political Commentary? No.

Web users have become accustomed to considering the Internet a "free-for-all" and a "digital disguise", allowing them to speak without revealing their identities, said an article in the New York Times on April 11. But it added that anonymity is "under attack from several directions, and journalists, more than ever, are questioning whether anonymity should be a given on news sites."

The article revealed that some prominent journalists such as Leonard Pitts Jr., a Miami Herald columnist, wrote recently that anonymity has made online comments "havens for a level of crudity, bigotry, meanness and plain nastiness that shocks the tattered remnants of our propriety."

It also wrote about the similar view of William Grueskin, dean of academic affairs at Columbia's journalism school. Grueskin understood that people turned to the Internet to comment anonymously on issues that may cause troubles for them in real life. "But a lot of comment boards turn into the equivalent of a barroom brawl," he said.

Then how to solve the problem? Many newspapers, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, have plans to require readers to register to provide personal information that "isn't shown onscreen before posting comments", said the article.

And it mentioned that the Washington Post is planning to establish a system to ask readers to rank comments. "One of the criterion could be whether commenters use their real names," explained Hal Straus, interactivity editor of the Washington Post, and he said that this approach was much like the one the Huffington Post is set to adopt.

Another way to weed out unhealthy content is having someone to review opinions before they go online. The Times is among a few news organizations that adopted this method, and "some sites and prominent bloggers, like Andrew Sullivan, simply do not allow comments."

According to the article, "Some news sites review comments after they are posted, but most say they do not have the resources to do routine policing". And many sites allow contributors to "flag objectionable comments for removal, and make some effort to block comments from people who have repeatedly violated the site's standards".

The article mentioned that it's too labor-intensive to verify false identities, but news executives believed that "merely making the demand for a name and an e-mail address would weed out much of the most offensive commentary".

According to the article, Arianna Huffington, a founder of the Huffington Post, said, "As the rules of the road are changing and the Internet is growing up, the trend is away from anonymity."

People freaked internationally when China did the same thing; required a name and a province to post comments. It greatly reduced the number of extreme and insensitive comments and didn't hurt the flow of quality or true thought. Same should be done in the US. You're free to express yourself, just not anonymously.

I think there's a difference between when websites make such rules and when a nation does.
Anonymity and [whatever the word is for its opposite- I'm lost on it right now; I'll probably remember later] each have their place and different websites have different levels of necessity/ability to do their own moderating.
I think it's good that many newspapers are doing this. But I'd hate to see it become some kind of legal issue.

Sites like this are a good reason for anonymity to be allowable in some cases. While there is the problem of uncivil behavior (and the need for moderators), I for one would be less apt to share some of my political views if I knew that people I deal with daily could google me and find them.
I don't talk about politics at work or with much of my family, and I think that's true of many.
There are good reasons for that.
Anonymity helps to increase the number of voices on the internet, to both good and bad ends.

I guess I can see the benefits of both sides. However, anonymity seems simpler, because if you make people divulge personal information doesn't that bring up questions of how much can one reasonably be required to divulge?

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

Anonymity helps to increase the number of voices on the internet, to both good and bad ends.

It's still mild anonymity, a name and a province or a name and an email won't have the world knowing who you are; there's probably several people with your name even within your local area; it's just meant to deter people from posting absolutely outrageous things because they'll have that fear that someone they know will recognize them.

Originally Posted by Sinopec

It's still mild anonymity, a name and a province or a name and an email won't have the world knowing who you are; there's probably several people with your name even within your local area; it's just meant to deter people from posting absolutely outrageous things because they'll have that fear that someone they know will recognize them.

But what compelling reason does government have to ensure civility on the whole internet?
I understand the newspapers doing it. I could even handle this forum doing that, I guess. But that's different from a nation doing it.