I think I’ve written no phrase more in recent months on our Website, unfortunately, than “abuse of anonymity.”
Privacy is something to be cherished, and many anonymous parties have been great contributors to our comments.
But anonymity abused is nothing but grief, except for the chucklehead behind the keyboard. And so, we change our online comment experiment, after about a year or so, to require that people register with the site before they can comment.
I hope it doesn’t chill comments. It surely doesn’t at sites like USA Today, where you also must register and log in to comment. I figure craigslist rants and rave can and should have the corner on totally anonymous brawls. We need to set the bar a bit higher than that/
Our comment system has been popular beyond my wildest dreams – thousands of postings a month. On the other hand, it also has brought threats of physical harm against me and others, and sincere people who say the comments online hurt KTVZ.COM’s reputation, etc. Then there are the catfights over ‘spin’ and ‘censorship.’ It gets old.
Meanwhile, for every person posting an interesting (or outrageous) comment, there have been dozens if not hundreds who read them, like one kind lady who complimented my efforts at moderation (oy, have I got the arrows to prove not everyone feels that way) and said the comments are “better than reality TV!”
I love a good conversation, but at times I’ve needed a whip and a chair, or felt like I was babysitting in kindergarten. I think many would rather I spend more time writing and less time fending off the anonymous hordes of hate and divisiveness.
So… we’ll try it this way. I’m hoping it’ll be a wash, posting/page view wise – that for every person who clicks away because they can’t post anonymously (or because it isn’t so salaciously enjoyable any more), there’ll be others who now enjoy a less nasty, more civil conversation (folks won’t be required to post with real names – I think – just register an e-mail address, etc. Learning as we go, people.)
Like anything else on the Internet, folks can find ways around it, but it won’t be so easy to just throw a bomb into the room and watch every run for cover. And if it causes unexpected problems, changing back is simple. Or finding a new answer.
I know some media sites that tried with required registration from the start have little or no interactivity, but I hope we’ve already built enough of an online community that this change will simply make us less offensive and more interesting a spot to visit or hang out.
—
AFTERNOON UPDATE: As usual, no change comes without pain. And it was a pain to see turning on registration/log-in requirement stopped comments completely. Ah, bugs and computers – they go together like… fill in the blank. We’ll try again once things are sorted out. Until then, I get to keep fighting to keep the conversation on a somewhat sane, non-incendiary plane. Wish me luck;-/
Leave it to Barney 
You already know my views. How’s your fingers… smokin?? Hope you get it. It seems to run okay for a while, then the kiddies choose to act up. I get tired of the slick slander and name calling. No point to it, and generalized bigotry, is still bigotry, even if it’s currently PC. Hope you get the bugs worked out. Too bad you have to.
While I agree with your reasons for moderation/registration, as much as I like you guys Barn, USA Today you are not 🙂
Yes, they get a ton of comments, but how many more (for better or for worse) do you think they’d get if they didn’t require registration?
Never claimed to be USA Today, Jake. But their signal-to-noise ratio is as insane as ours WITH registration. I could give a rip how many more they’d get if they allowed anyone wandering by to post without even a minimal set of “who are you?” standards. If you had to plow through the volume and venom I do every day, you might be a bit more in favor of such “restrictions.”
Whispering in the dark. Bold statements made without a source. Craigslist ads with no real contact numbers. Anonymous postings.
All of these break water and pounce on the emotional hook, but there’s no real substance to pull in, cook up, and fry.
Because there’s no one there. The things said during any conversation are weighted by the person behind the statements. Without identification, the words are worthless. They don’t add to the communities conversation.
But that doesn’t appear to stop people from believing what they read on the web. If we were to say many of those things in public, most of us would be shamed and called on our BS. But on the web, with anonymity, your writing can be just as low life as the coldest stone under your frozen garden and you don’t have to look anyone in the eye who would call your BS. And then many people believe the crap just because they read it on the web.
The results do not serve the interests of the online community or the real community. The episode of the Les Stiles election demonstrates the real damage online anonymity abuse can do. However ironic it turned out that time, the potential for real damage is not theoretical.
You set the bar wherever you see fit to banish the scumbags.
Hey there Tim.
Those who believe nasty talk in the bushes began with the Internet are missing something, to me, anyway.
Now the talk that was murmured when folks left the room or behind their back can be heard in front of them, for better and, of course, for worse.
People who believe things because they are typed anonymously on the Web would believe the worst fourth-hand gossip spread by other, less efficient means in the past.
And if we decide on who can do what based on such extremely gullible, believe-the-worst people, we are playing into their hands.
How do you know people believe what they read on the Web, esp. from anonymous sources, any more than they did watercooler gossip in days gone by? I don’t think it’s provable.
But to think that such discussions must ‘serve a greater good’ also seems a bit… haughty. We don’t set our goals so loftily, nor should we. Communities have their good, bad and ugly, on and offline.
Haughty? Haughty! Thats the first time anyone’s called me that! At least, with that spelling…
Ok, let’s open up our community, Let’s put the Preachers, pushers and prostitutes all on the same street together and let them compete on equal footing.
What kind of a community does that create? Uh huh.
So, while I would like to see an open and free society and internet, I know people. There is a lot out there that we do not want to promote. Partly because of some fools who will believe anything and partly because we don’t want to give free public access for hate.
Constructive conversations are going to become more important in the future as papers disappear and blogs like yours become the editorial page.
Like it or not, Barney, you have graduated from just a reporter the the closest thing KTVZ has to an editorial staff. Here’s one Atta-boy. Raise? hmmm, sorry…
I know that’s probably uncomfortable for you, but no one is more humbly qualified. You’re not burdened like Costas, with his Quixiotic charges, or Switzer, with his terrier sniping at the big dog.
You’ve always been balanced. To a fault sometimes. I know there’s more in you. You don’t need to be a mirror for the community like at BDC anymore. Go ahead, take a risky editorial position. It’ll get enogh folks riled up to have a real converstion with real names. Just run it by Bob first.
Nope, I have enough risks in my life just trying to get the facts straight and defending our articles against nasty,unfair attacks. Not enough for you? So sorry. You’d probably think we shouldn’t expand to Facebok either, but we have. How can we say ‘never mind’ to 200 million eyeballs (when our competitor is there)?
I take stands against lynch mobs and for government and the justice system. Risky enough for me. But thanks for the kind words and the intriguing discussion.