Washingtonpost.com wants identities of readers who post comments
LOS ANGELES--If Jim Brady had his way, there would be no guaranteed anonymity for those who post comments to Washingtonpost.com.
Brady, executive editor of The Washington Post's online division, said during a panel discussion at the Digital Hollywood conference here that he would like to see a technology that could identify people who violate site standards--and if need be--automatically kick them off for good.
Brady has a notable history with this issue and I'll get to that. First, his position must be made clear. In an interview following the panel discussion, Brady said he doesn't want people's personal information for any other reason but to hold them accountable for what they post. He said he's not--as he has been accused by some--an enemy of free speech. He just wants to oversee a site where readers engage in civil discourse and debate without fear of it degenerating into a "back alley environment."
"I think part of the problem is that people aren't held accountable on the Web," Brady said. "People say things online they would never say when disagreeing with someone at the dinner table. I think heated debate is fine, but when there are (flame wars), many people won't take part for fear they will be attacked and bashed over the head with the (Internet-equivalent) of a steel pipe."
Brady knows how intensely many Internet users disagree with him. He made headlines in January 2006 after shutting down the comments area of a blog where outraged readers gathered to rebuke the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell.
Following the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, Howell erred when she said that the lobbyist gave campaign donations to Democrats as well as Republicans. Abramoff gave only to Republicans. The paper's Web site saw more than 1,000 comments, many from people who accused the Post of conspiring with the Republicans.
Things got worse when Howell posted a clarification. When Brady saw that many of those comments violated the paper's policy against the use of profanity or personal attacks, he blocked users' ability to post. The decision was widely criticized. In defense of his decision, Brady wrote that many of the posts weren't comments at all, but the kind of thing "you might find carved on the door of a public toilet stall."
I reminded Brady that many people feel strongly about their right to privacy online. He responded that he feels strongly about it too, but there are plenty of sites that take an anything-goes approach and that people who want to drop F-bombs and blast each other should go there. "We don't want our site to be sanitized, but we have the right to create a different kind of community," Brady said.
Brady also lamented that closing user accounts doesn't keep bad eggs off a site. They just come back and create new ones. He said that his site can identify someone's IP address, but it's not an elegant solution because blocking them can be tricky. "You don't want to end up blocking the entire Department of Energy or something like that," he said.
Pluck, a company that provides social-networking software, helps maintain some of the Post's blogs and has implemented a "bozo filter," which can isolate comments that include banned words or phrases, according to Brady.
But this isn't a solution. Brady believes that in the next five years people will be required to identify themselves in some way at many sites. "I don't know whether we do it with a credit card number, a driver's license or passport, but I think making people responsible would raise the level of discourse."
Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET.
web site. In our company Google and similar searches are done
on any new hires. If a prospective or new hire is found to use
what are considered radical web sites (Daily Kos, etc) then they
are either not hired, fired during probation, or put on notice
about the risk of such activities. I fear too many college
students do not realize the risk of such activity and it will come
back to haunt them in the work world just as pictures on
Facebook, and YouTube videos are doing.
But let's be honest here - far too many people say really scurrilous things and hide behind a user name. Yelling fire in a theater is not free speech and if we want a civilized society then we have to be responsible and accountable.
Pepper Parr
tremorfireheart@yahoo.com
And, I'm a fan of South Park and John Waters, so I doubt that this is caused by my "fragile psyche."
The unidentified comments will be awash in ranting and $#&@! It will be a chore to read and usually ignored.
Regard the 'identified' posts with replies from the WP writer, and, occasionally, publish the postings in the print edition.
Now you have created value to the reader and the poster.
There's certainly a role for the anonymous poster. A separate sandbox is a simple solution.
Someone will excitedly point out that it's not a panacea. That's OK. I'd rather have a 95% effective junk filter than none at all.
And before someone else gets carried away, the above does not imply that all anonymous postings are junk. This arrangement simply allows readers to define anonymity as junk if they choose. It's not the site's choice in that case; it's the readers' choice.
And it makes room for those with multiple persona - RL versus World of Warcraft, Caspar Milquetoast (look it up, kids) versus the Great Dark Troll What's-His-Name. Good guy one day and flamer the next - just in a different forum.
Works for me.
Disclaimer: I do post anonymously or under a different name on occasion. I'm trying to reduce the chance that a personal opinion will be taken for one held by my employer.
You want people's credit card numbers? Their license or passport?
Are you nuts!?!
It gets worse. Let's say there is some foaming at the mouth wack job who doesn't agree with your point of view and he can identify you? What if he's homicidal? Do you want some wack job to be able to identify and find you? No, you don't.
Anyone who feels so safe about being accountable for their posts online, post your personal information right here, there, or anywhere you want. Don't be surprised when you become an identity theft victim or a victim of violent crime from some internet wack job who doesn't share your point of view. If a post violates terms of use, ban the poster. If they keep coming back to post the same TOS violating garbage, ban them again. Sooner or later they will get the point and go away and leave the rest of us alone. Meanwhile, until it becomes Federal law, I'm not frequenting any website that requires submittal of credit card or drivers license info. My personal information isn't going to be made available to any website.
Though, to be perfectly honest.... I already put my real name and address on my registrations for sites, because I am not ashamed of the points that I make.
I've also been banned and unbanned from many sites when I filed 'freedom of speech' complaints against the people who banned me, and 75% of the time........ I get unbanned the same day.
When I adhere to the commonly accepted, logical, and socially acceptable types of postings, I don't have a problem with identifying myself. Truths accepted by society have little risk.
When I feel I need to post about something that is socially unaccepted, such as abortion, or euthanasia, I use a pseudonym. If I didn't use a pseudonym, I stand a very real chance of being terminated in my job. Legal protections from government censorship do not protect you from resistance to retailiation in the workplace or social environment. Unfortunately, those social environmental mores are often wrong and MUST be opposed. Otherwise, black would still be slaves in the fields, and women would still be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
The long version of The Washington Post's rules is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/delphi/delphirules.htm
Pepper Parr
People should NOT have to identify themselves in order to speak, and really I have seen MUCH TOO HARSH of moderation many times because I speak out on those things, only to get unbanned from sites after I threaten to file a 'freedom of speech' lawsuit against them.
As I say: people are free to disagree with me, but just banning me from saying reasonable, logical things that are not politically popular is totally unconstitutional and should not be done.
Really though.... I don't even worry. I put my real name and address on EVERY SINGLE site that I register to, because I am not some 'wilting daisy'. Though, I would like to not have to worry about someone coming after me solely for my views, and trying to hurt my family.... oh well, just a risk I and they will have to take for now.
I personally have been banned from sites for arguing against the child pornography and 'child sexual abuse' laws, and have gotten on their case about respecting my right to free speech and threatened a lawsuit.
Most of the sites put my postings back up when I did that, because they knew they would lose in court.
Holding someones person info when you do not need it is a bad way to do business. They will have to spend a ton of money to verify and secure it. But it will never be 100% secure.
Are they actually going to check the info to make sure it is accurate? That is more expensive than hiring moderators.
Are you willing to risk identity theft or worse just to post?
Really, though, perhaps the real issue for the Brady bunch is journalistic integrity, and fact-checking, as in the example. WP dropped the ball and now they want to blame others for being angry.
There are plenty of sites where moderation works well -- the best approach leaves the entry but the TOS violating text is removed by a moderator. That makes it obvious the screenname is known to be a problem.
As for 'internal use only', ha! Remember all the government laptops lost with millions of database entries of personal information? As well as sites hacked, etc. Like they say, the best secret is one known by a single person.
And for what? To post crap on a web site?
So, if I comment, then I must understand that my bank will have it (I need to seem serious at all times, show both some greed and my willingness to use credit) , my insurance will have it (Ok, I won't mention doing anything that could be dangerous in any way), all taxation bodies will have it (don't brag about anything, stay low profile, don't talk about politics), my employer will have it (Oh, boy ... nearly anything beyond posting positive comment on their products or services is pretty much off limits), the police will have it (the end of jokes), Rumsfeld will have it (Now, I think this is good, really good as it's normal our every moves are carefully monitored, to make us safer and free and anyone who disagree must have something to hide).
- For whatever its worth...
-
by sandonet
May 6, 2008 8:05 PM PDT
- I don't pretend to know what the answer is.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
- I'll pretend for you.
-
by suyts
May 6, 2008 8:19 PM PDT
- Yes, everyone should be civil. No, not every one is. Does a website have a right to control the content of the website? Absolutely. And it should remain so. The onus is on us, the posters, on any site. If we can't keep it clean, then we know that many will suffer for our actions. That said, there is no obligation to be "nice".
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (88 Comments)I only know that after reading some very well thought out and persuasive posts here, both for and against, I think perhaps its time for a broader debate on the issue.
Greg