Comments on: Washingtonpost.com wants identities of readers who post comments

Newspaper exec would like those who post comments held accountable for what they say. He says he believes in free speech, but won't accept "back alley environment."

[tintinitis]

Are you saying this site isn't reputable?

Why don't you identify yourself?

[123why321]

Because Tintintis... is not a real name that I can look up in the phone book.

How about a real identity?

It's not about reputation, it's about freedom to speak!

Who knew who Thomas Payne was before 1800?

[Imalittleteapot]

Who cares?

If I was concerned enough and wanted to post without giving away my identity. I don't need to post on their site. If they want to push posters away that's fine. I'll just go somewhere else and post. If no sites let me post without giving my identity that's fine. I'll create my own site where users can post article links and comments without giving their ID. I would advertise that as a feature. Trolls welcome.

If they took my site down. I'd probably start researching and tracking down some programmers for a whole new type of P2P app. Like a freenet that actually worked or something.

I'll use a walkie-talkie if I have to. I don't need their site.

[declan00]

Anonymity vs. disclosure: general WP thoughts

My colleague Greg has written an interesting article that raises good points. Of course there is no First Amendment issue with a private actor setting ground rules for what can happen on its Web site (any more than there is for you to demand ID before letting someone into your home).

So the primary question is whether such an ID-requiring move is a good one or not. It's the Washington Post's Web site; its editors are in the best position to figure that out. If a policy becomes too restrictive, no doubt washingtonpost.com will lose traffic, revenue, and prominence. If it is a problem, it's at least self-correcting (any credit card-required experiment will fail/correct quickly, I imagine).

But there is long-standing precedent online for private sites restricting anonymity in hopes of building community. The Well did this over 20 years ago (and still does this through its YOYOW policy):
http://www.well.com/join.html

I bow to nobody in my opposition to governmental restrictions on anonymity. But let's not dismiss out of hand a private company's attempts to raise the level of discourse, even though its methods are clunky. Besides, if you really want to slam a WP writer, feel free to set up your own blog and do just that. Anonymously.

[posys]

SOPHIST ?

declan - you sound like a SOPHIST...

remember we are talking about freedom of the press here, a public form of communication, as important as private ballots... certainly when you ask the public for their opinion, you must accept all opinions or you are not asking them for their opinion, make up your mind !!!

when you accept only some opinions you are thereby imposing your opinion.

Keep clean lines of separation otherwise you are baiting and switching, giving the impression of open communications when in fact you are not providing it, only its appearance.

You would take the collective sum of that "tainted" blog as representative of "free" opinion to the bank and buy something with it, but that would be fraud. This is precisely the sort of leaven and sophistry that buys & makes the world very corrupted and is slowing the inevitable advent of the "ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY" which will free all mankind from the Machinery of Economy once and for all !!! http://RoboEco.com/post-privacy

Newspaper's have a public duty to be free of DECEPTIVE bias and taint, in the expression of THEIR opinion and presentation of the reality of the freewill response to it, i.e. to NOT DECEIVE !! as they OVERWHELMINGLY impact the lives of the public who are powerless outside of free expression to steer such impact the press exerts on them !!

We cannot have dossiers being formed on people trying to express their opinions in PUBLIC FORUMS, what part of "FREE", un-intimidated, SPEECH do you NOT understand declan ?

You should know better in today's database intensive world that it is easy to build dossier's on people, are you sure you want to be on the wrong side of this issue, for if you have you way now, you may later not ever have your way again, can you grasp the idea of totalitarian regimes and thought control declan? Read "MAO: The Unknow Story": http://teaminfinity.com/writings/MAO.shtml

Remember MAO killed 100's of millions of his OWN people less than 1 generation ago, have you a clue ?

Have you read "SUPERCLASS" yet declan ?

"SUPERCLASS" ->http://teaminfinity.com/COMMUNICAE-12556.shtml

Peace to you declan and thanks for the opportunity to respond to your views.

[posys]

R WE 2B Robotic Mouthpieces of the "SUPERCLASS"?

Forcing posters to ID themselves will make the posters the mouthpieces of the "SUPERCLASS", turning the posters into ROBOTIC mouthpieces of the "SUPERCLASS"... That is not free speech, and just goes to show that the rulers don't want to know the truth and wont hear it if this effort to ID posters becomes widespread, for then fewer and fewer will take the risk of saying something "unapproved", you know like in China and other totalitarian situations.

KNOW the "SUPERCLASS" -><URL:http://teaminfinity.com/COMMUNICAE-12556.shtml>
& reach out to them so you can help them to understand the hope and reward of the "ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY" which they are uniquely positioned and strong enough to implement for all humankind !!

Remember, you should want to hear all responses, stop being a baby, you can ignore cant you ? Why not hear all voices, no matter how distracting, unless you want to control what others say, you should not mind hearing all voices, let people respond as they will, you got to say what you wanted, let the people reply. VOX POPULI

[posys]

R WE 2B Robotic Mouthpieces of the "SUPERCLASS"?

Forcing posters to ID themselves will make the posters the mouthpieces of the "SUPERCLASS", turning the posters into ROBOTIC mouthpieces of the "SUPERCLASS"...

That is not free speech, and just goes to show that the rulers don't want to know the truth and wont hear it if this effort to ID posters becomes widespread, for then fewer and fewer will take the risk of saying something "unapproved", you know like in China and other totalitarian situations.

KNOW the "SUPERCLASS" -> http://teaminfinity.com/COMMUNICAE-12556.shtml
& reach out to them so you can help them to understand the hope and reward of the

"ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY"
http://RoboEco.com/posting-privacy

which perhaps only the "SUPERCLASS" is uniquely positioned and strong enough to implement for all humankind !!

and Remember, you should want to hear all responses, stop being a baby, you can ignore cant you ? Why not hear all voices, no matter how distracting, unless you want to control what others say, you should not mind hearing all voices, let people respond as they will, you got to say what you wanted, let the people reply.

VOX POPULI

[as901]

I have nothing to hide.

It has been my experience that the pro business, right wing type posters seem to hide behind false names 5 times more than other posters. Perhaps they are using many names to appear to be a majority when they are not?

I myself only post comments that I can openly stand by, and I always use my real name. With that comes some hate mail, but here is my point.

You can post what you honestly know to be true, and some will hate you while others are on your side. You can post what seems to be a majority view, and some will hate you and some will be on your side.

I would rather not hate myself, so I only post that which I myself know to be true! Perhaps it is time for Americans to come out of their shells and opemly state their views?

Mark Heinemann
US Veteran
Openly against this war.

[posys]

good job Mark

Your point of the hypocrisy of those wanting everyone else to lose their privacy while retaining their own is a HOME RUN, but you would agree that privacy is still important correct ?

Have you read about the new book "SUPERCLASS" yet Mark ?

http://teaminfinity.com/COMMUNICAE-12556.shtml

[as901]

Yes.I agree privacy is important. What concerns me is how the rights wing GOP has used hundreds of false online names to appear to be a majority, send email bombs and viruses. I feel that when a person attacks the computer ir reputation of another, they should have the courage to use a real name and a way to be contacted. We have a right to privacy, but not a right to harm, slander or defraud.

An example is our emails should remain private, since it is not an open letter to all. It is a letter intended for a single reader. Our personal information should remain private as well.

What should not be allowed is slander and fraud using privacy as an excuse to get away with it.

An example is when the Office of Information, a Federal branch, uses tax paid workers to slander those that do not agree with Bush policy or the war. The posters used false names and posted outright lies and slander.

In one such case a femaie back from the first Iraq war was suffering from radiation poison. Depleted uranium rounds were used and many soldiers breathed in radioactive dust. The young woman, who was dying, posted her story on the User Net and found a massive hate mail attack and mass virus mailings.

The dying woman's name was slandered as well. When she demanded the names of those that sent the virus and slander, the ISP claimed "privacy issues". The emails were later traced to a government owned site!

By that time the woman had ended her own life! As a board member of a national Vietnam Era veterans rights group at the time, The Firebase Network, I too was emailed email bombs and viruses, and of course I too was slandered.

This did not bother me, but it made it impossible for me to find the real posts in a sea of email bombs and viruses. I was unable to complile a list of veterans who had been harmed because the GOP employees filled my email box up each time.

They never used real names and never were stopped or punished. Countless veterans who attempted to contact me or the other board members were blocked from getting real email by the massive email bombs, which were large format pictures intended to fill our mail boxes.

The government was sucessful at censoring the truth, and privacy issues was used as the reason that none of the viruses, email bombs or slander could be traced! To this day the public never had a chance to learn about the fact that our nation allowed depleted uranium to be dropped and poison civilians and our own troops!

The Canadian press ran the stories, but it was never told here!

The privacy issue can be misued and is by the right wing of the GOP and others. It is because of this I have come to the conclusion that personal attacks should only be allowed if the user uses his or her true name. This will protect honest people from the type of slander that happened when Gore ran for office. Like other Vietnam veterans before him, he found his name smeared by lies. The posters refused to use real names because they knew that they were using fraud and slander!

The truth about the wars we wage, the truth about who really deserted and who did not is important when we choose a Commander and Chief! Democracy is impossible without truth, and as long as those who use lies and slander are allowed to hide behind assumed names, Democracy will be inpossible!

Mark Heinemann is my real name.
I joined the military on my 17th birthday during war time.
I am against this war as is almost every combat veteran I know.
How can you judge this to be the truth if a fake is allowed to post hundreds of posts under hundreds of false names and create false info?
How will we ever know how to vote then?

[RevArgent]

Anonymity vs Accountability

What Jim Brady is really looking for is not an end to anonymity, it's for an end to unaccountability. It's not that posting to WashingtonPost.com is anonymous, it's that it's anonymous and the posters have nothing at stake.

There are any number of schemes that can combine anonymity and accountability... with accountability limited to the cost of creating the anonymous pseudonym you're using to post. Simply requiring a repliable mail address creates a small cost for anonymity... possibly not enough for Jim, but enough to deter many "reflex" posters. Particularly if you expire such accounts periodically, as CNET seems to do. :)

But imagine an anonymizing proxy that costs $9.95 to get an account on. When you post through it, it passes some token to the webserver (possibly via HTTP headers) that contains a consistent random UUID associated with your account on the proxy, and the server can block postings by UUID. Then each time you anonymously post scatological material to WP, it'll cost you almost ten bucks, but as far as the WP is concerned you're still as anonymous as if you were posting from the public library.

I think that's MORE than enough accountability for the likes of a public bulletin board, no?

[posys]

"nothing @ stake" = freewill

Glad you brought up "stake"

"nothing @ stake" = freewill

whenever you feel threatened, you are not making free will decisions...

there should be no cost for freedom.
charging for freedom is JumboMumbo

make sense, read "SUPERCLASS"
http://teaminfinity.com/COMMUNICAE-12556.shtml

[thetopnerd]

ClickaNerd | Damn Skippy

If you don't have the nad?s to say it to someone?s face, than why should you be able to use the internet as a bully pulpit with anonymity?

This problem has gone on for way too long. The Washington Post is absolutely correct in this position.

The internet has produced a world of wimps. If you believe in your position on anything; stand up and let the world know your name, address, telephone number and e-mail address.

Shawn A. Richeson
Service Manager
[e-mail]
[phone] ? Cell

[drfrost]

It would raise the level of discourse... and also lower it...

Yes, with "apparent" anonymity you have people crossing the line into vulgarity. But without it, you have people holding back what they think should be said for fear of reprisal. Reprisal from... say... a powerful newspaper?

True anonymouty gives real freedom of speach. Yes... it also allows people to cross the line into distasteful.... even illegal territory. But in this day and age, I think we need to be more concerned with preserving the former rather than protecting against the latter.

[rhettless]

ralfthedog is right here

There is no freedom of speech on a privately owned website. Because they are paying for the server space, and bandwidth they have everyright not to use their money to support your comments.

[Zaunto]

Opinions

Opinions vary,

I stated mine, which is based on my experiences in life. You stated yours. We disagree. That happens some times. Clearly the place where that fellow who's employer does internet searches to determine if a prospective new hire frequents websites they don't particularly like is going beyond what someone does or doesn't do on the job and is basing their hiring decision on something besides their resume, experience, skills, and abilities. What people do on their personal time isn't company time and that shouldn't factor into hiring choices but clearly, it factors into the choices at this "undisclosed company" of his. You may be ok with that. I'm not. To each his own.

[123why321]

Well, this really sucks. I mean, if you were to walk through any city in North America, and have a discussion with a stranger at a newsstand on the street. Would you ask for their "credentials"?

Or would you go back and forth, for a while, and then leave the street corner? Would you go back and ask around to see if anyone else has seen that person, or talked with them, or even go so far as to work on "banning them" from that corner?

Are we pimps working our beat?

I thought the whole registration process is a bit invasive already... now they want to know my credit info?

Sorry, but if I offend you, you really have no right to find out where I live and attack my family! Real life bombs do not stop online comments!

As the old saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Sounds like Mr. Brady needs a new kitchen (say Mothers Day Magazine).

* Keep your chin up, it's much harder for small people to blemish it. *

[SamThornton]

I note that Mr. Brady started his life in journalism as a sports writer. Makes sense. His proposals exhibit the combination of thin skinned touchiness and lack of knowledge about how the internet tubes actually work that put him in the Ray Romano class. I'm thinking his expertise might blossom better at the Department of Homeland Security, Nutty Ideas Division.

[IThinkThisIsBroken]

I agree with your stand on the web anonymity issue, but there is another sided to it. I was a frequent commenter on Huff?s Post until I posted an interesting observation about the presumptive nominees. I will not include it here, but I promise you it was not salacious, abusive, insulting, vulgar, or smutty.
On the contrary, it was imaginative, tender and hopefully funny. Funny because that is my business. I wrote for Get Smart, The Dick Van **** Show, Please Don?t Eat the Daisies, etc., etc. For anyone interested, I am liberally identified by Google and IMDb.
The ending to this tome is that apparently someone at Huff did not like this bit of humor and banned, not the particular piece, he or she banned me. From commenting on the Huff Post for ever and ever.
I feel like Howard Beale at the end of the movie Network, who ?was shot for having poor ratings.?
Joseph C. Cavella
HowToWriteComedy.com

[IThinkThisIsBroken]

A sage said, "The public must suffer ten-thousand failed musicians to produce one Mozart." Perhaps the same applies to commenters and bloggers.
Joseph C. Cavella
howtowritecomedy.com

[contractor123]

The Post is generally regarded among the leading daily American newspapers, along with The New York Times, which is known for its general reporting and international coverage, and The Wall Street Journal, which is known for its financial reporting. The Post has distinguished itself through its political reporting on the workings of the White House, Congress, and other aspects of the U.S. government.

www.moneylogical.co.uk

[IThinkThisIsBroken]

Any pundit who says that
McCain chose Sarah Palin
for this or that reason is
more of a potato head than usual.
A child can see that McCain is
so uncomfortable standing beside her,
he doesn?t know what to do
with his hands or where to look.

It is painfully obvious
that this attractive, unqualified lady
was pulled out of the hat by the
Rovies to sweep up the women
who are wandering loose,
dazed by the relentless trashing of
Hillary by the Left and the Right.

howtowritecomedy.com

[xxl-dwar]

www.allfree.yoyohost.com/Adult/index.html
www.allfree.yoyohost.com/adult-baby/index.html

[pardhananilakshman]

Every newspaper has a personality and a community which determines it. It is entirely reasonable to set standards by which the newspaper and its community are to be viewed both internally by the community as well as by outsiders.
Expecting people to identify themselves is bound to raise the level of debate and root out unnecessary twaddle. I have seen a lot of the latter with comments in an English paper of some standing which I find regrettable.
The only problem is that honest comment made with conviction can attract retribution from people with a twisted or an evil mind. There needs to be some way of preventing this to an otherwise very sensible proposition.

[yarismak]

The answer is pretty simple. Moderators. In fact, given that decline of print news, this should be part of the role of the editorial staff. Well moderated sites end up creating cultures that self-moderate.
http://www.yarismak.com