Comments

1
you should have a voting applet.

I vote for Dalton's point, and I would re-iterate that good moderation cures the ills of anonymity.

@ Erik: is Alison "cowering" by filtering what she says to one group of friends differently than what she says to another, or her own family? That's not a "guts" thing, it's just simple prudence in communication.

Frankly, I think a little bit less of commenters who use their real name - no matter what they said, or what they might (re)think about it later, there is no backsies. They are on record, forever, and it's easy for things to be plucked out of context at a time when you least expect it.

As someone who has engaged in a lot of litigation-related electronic discovery, I've seen enough exhibits based on unfortunate emails and message board posts to know that I would never attach my real name to anything released into the digital ether.
2
So you think a little bit less of me then, CC?
3
@ kiala, you make your living from your online presence, so no.

Also, yes.
4
One of the major problems with removing anonymous commentary is that is stifles intellectual creativity and can hurt future prospects. The internet has a long, long, LONG memory. I'm able to Google things that were written by me as far back as June of 1993. Should future employers be able to track down the stupid things I wrote when I was 12? I realize that I'm an outlier on how far back internet memory can go, but for the current crop of 12 year olds, they are the norm. The stupid conversations that I used to have with my friends just disappeared like all conversations used to. But now people are having these talks on messageboards and twitter and facebook.

There was a period of time in 2000 and 2001 that I was seriously toying around with various Negative and Zero Population Growth philosophies. Some fairly horrible ideas were bandied about in an attempt to arrive at a truth. Should discussions about eugneics I had 10 years ago be easily available to anyone with access to Google (i.e., everyone)? I don't think so.

The *chan model is an amazing use of true intellectual freedom. It allows the participants to put forth their stupidest, most immature ideas and see what floats. They're not going to be known forever as the guy who wanted to know about using toothpaste as a masterbaterial aid. If we force everyone to be held accountable for every stupid thing they've ever said, no one will take risks or grow.

This is not to say that there shouldn't be grown up places where we are held accountable. These are just important to have as places of absolute anonymity. The problem that seems to happen with these discussions is that the arguments get reduced to either requiring full first and last names or total chaos. The internet is a huge fucking place with room for lots of different models of discourse. If you feel uncomfortable in places where's it okay to call someone a cocksucking-pedophile-scumbag, there are other places to hang out.
5
I missed the original thread, but I did learn that "Alison is the best" from the comments. Based on her viewpoint above, I'm inclined to agree. I don't see it as "cowering", as a bit of anonymity frees us up to-- yes, be assholes on occasion-- but also to learn to be more awesome, one awkward, community-chastising mistake at a time.

If we all had to be non-anonymous, no one would be here. It would be a big, awkward high school dance. Like Facebook.
6
@ graham: (isolated claps - > scattered applause -> raucous ovation)
7
You don't necessarily need to require people disclose their real names so that the entire record of their thoughts online are available to moms and employers. I do like the idea of some system that can prevent sock-puppetry and enforce good behavoir. Metafilter does this well, with a barrier of entry to sign up ($5), and with stricter moderation than you'll see in most newspapers.
8
@Commenty Colin: The "prudence in communication" thing is an excellent, excellent point. But to take it bit further, I'd say that's what I try to do, too: If I'm responsible for what I say, then I'm not going to be comfortable saying certain things online (or in print, or in front of a tape recorder, or around my mom). So I don't.
9
A 5-minute framework for fostering better conversations in comments sections:

http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/digital-str…
10
Also, I now find myself in the disconcerting position of actually agreeing with some of what Graham said.
11
I'm totally going to wear a digital mask to the next blogtown meetup.

12
I'm just going to go to the next Blogtown meetup and tell everyone my name is Todd Mecklem.
13
Anonymity / Schnanonymity, has anyone noticed the add for what appears to be a real live store specialized in survival.

http://www.portlandprepared.com/

They have underground survival shelters for $72,000. That's $7,000 off guys! Where is the story on this store and the folks behind it?
14
I recognize I have the luxury of an online presence which is expected to be somewhat silly, irreverent, and at times offensive so you know...I do what I want but I am not so out of touch with reality as to not get that a billion people might HAVE to take a job where their jokes about boners might be frowned upon.

15
It's also worth noting that a "no anonymous/pseudonymous commenting allowed" policy == "log-in with your facebook account!" (Or some other centralized type of log-in system.) Some sites, like techcrunch, have moved toward this. I don't really care about the "decreased fluff/trolling and increased civility/quality" that comes as a result of this system (probably because I don't spend my time reading the crappy anon comments on sites). I'm more interested in my cousins in Kansas NOT being exposed to a "ROM just left a comment on *this* blogtown post. Click here to read it" message in the fb feed every time I comment somewhere. Right now, they aren't in the loop, and I don't want them to be thrust into the loop just because technology allows it.
16
@Babygorilla: Um, the Merc covered it two months ago. Way to pay attention.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/in…
17
Doesn't the Mercury publish a weekly column devoted to anonymous commenting?

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Ar…
18
I'm somewhere in the middle. Sites should not force commenters to use their real names, and especially not Facebook. Facebook becoming The One True Login does not sit well with me.

That said, I admire people who have the balls to stand behind what they say and use their real name. Taking responsibility and owning what you say is a great way to not be a fuckwad. I've been at my worst when I've been anonymous, and act like a real person when my name's on what I say.
19
@erik I see where you're coming from with wanting people to stand behind what they say. However, note that you're a journalist working for an extremely progressive publication.

A lot of employers not only have discriminatory hiring practices against certain viewpoints, or simply raunchy humor, but keep tight restrictions on what an employee can communicate during business hours (which for anyone with a dayjob, coincides with the news cycle). I've specifically made these agreements and specifically have raunchy humor. You're, thus, not going to Google my real name telling Rick Santorum to suck his own dick.

The irony is that, with my own 65 year old mother, I do in fact engage in expletive-laden political rants.
20
@JohannStreckert: This second point of yours feels like fallacious logic. You're saying that I, posting with a pseudonym, am able to get away scott-free with typing asshole-ish comments, but that you aren't. But this simply isn't true. My birth name isn't a requisite for "ownership" of the things I type. And using a pseudonym has very little to do with lacking ballsacks or responsibility.

Plus, why on earth do you feel a need to "stand behind" every comment you make? Are your comments/ideas that important? When I comment about liking a band that was featured on End Hits, do you think I'll need to ball up and defend my comment at a later date? No, I doubt I will. Because no one cares! And if I do have to defend it, well, people can find me - I've left over 1,000 comments on this site (aka they can find me on this site; they don't need to use my real name, look up my address, and then knock on my door).

I would argue that you and I - right now - can sit here and defend our comments in this thread on equal grounds, despite the fact that one of us uses a birth name and the other a pseudonym/avatar.

I think you need to recognize/clarify the difference between anonymous and pseudonymous commenting.
21
I think anonymous commenting has a lot of positives. The biggest one, I think, is that people feel safe expressing beliefs they hold but would never discuss with their name attached.

Anonymous commenting allows people to be more honest about opinions they have that are racist, sexist, or just controversial. Although it's rarely pretty, I think it's good to have a space where these kind of ugly truths can be aired. And sometimes, it's not even that ugly.

I think anonymity is one of the greatest gifts of the internet. It allows gay people to post on major media sites without worrying about being outed in their hometown, it allows office workers to vent about politics without fear that it will get back to their bosses.

Without anonymity, the internet would become a big fucking dinner party. Even though it can lead to some vicious namecalling, I like how it is now, when everyone's not tiptoeing around holding their tongue.

The trade off is that people who DO use their names on the internet may self-censor (I know I do), because if they're too personal or controversial themselves, they'll likely be torn to shreds by what can feel like an anonymous horde.

Because of that, I'm in favor of moderating comments and systems where people reward comments that add to the discussion, so that pointless antagonism is discouraged by the wider community.
22
Oh! I also want to add that a local guy named Brighton West is making a documentary about internet commenters and this issue (and he interviewed me for it!). The finished film will be shown April 22nd at the Mission Theater: http://nwdocumentary.org/education/homegro…
23
Hate to agree with him because it seems like everyone always does, but Colin is right. Good moderation cures *most* of the ills of internet commenting. The Merc staff usually read the comments left here, so things never get too out of hand (usually: ).

If "The Blogtown" wasn't so small, it might be a different story. There's a reason why mega sites like Huff Po and Fox Nation have such terrible commenters. Those sites are so large that they gets more comments in a day than Blogtown could get in a year and they also attract more weirdos. If there are too many commenters on a site, effective human moderation is too difficult (and expensive) to do. At that point, these other tools (e.g. facebook/twitter logins, keyword censorship, banning anonymous commenting) makes more sense.

On an unrelated note, I miss Matt Davis (even though I bare remember him).
24
Sarah, while you were writing that very thoughtful response, the rest of the anonymous horde and I were asking Steve to root through your desk.

GET YOUR TORCHES, HORDE. SARAH MIGHT HAVE SOME WEIRD STUFF!
25
@smirk: Did you talk about me in your interview? I hope so.
26
How come the oldtimers here never mention the fact that Blogtown use to be a cesspool of trolling and commenter-baiting? Blogtown's Dark Ages are like that deformed brother kept in the attic that no one ever mentions, but we all know that he exists.

Also, forgot to mention this in my previous post: Slate is garbage and Farhad Manjoo is overrated.

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2008/0…
27
@ROM Whoah, dude! I'm not saying that people who use fake names are fuckwads. Not necessarily.

What I said was "Taking responsibility and owning what you say is a great way to not be a fuckwad." Using your real name is one thing commenters can do to prevent themselves from being jerks. In particular, I'm referring to myself.

In the past, I've been a fuckwad when hiding behind a pseudonym. I've said nasty, horrible things to people on the internet. I've said things that I didn't believe, that weren't true, that contributed nothing towards intelligent conversation.

Why? Because it was funny. Because I could get away with it. Because there weren't any consequences. And I doubt that I'm the only person here who's done that.

I don't do that anymore. I don't want to be a dick. A big way of checking my own dickery is that I only post things that I'd say in real life, because my name is on them. Perhaps "balls" isn't the best term for it. I use my real name because it instills a sense of discipline and civility, and brings my online persona closer to who I am as a person.

That said, I don't think everyone should be required to do that, but I of course admire people who act the same way I do. This is not to say that you're a fuckwad, ROM. Not at all. What I do prevents my own fuckwaddery from taking root.
28
It's a ridiculous idea to force commenters to identify themselves whether they want to or not. They'll just go and post somewhere they can remain anonymous. And if they have to identify themselves *everywhere*... that's no different than if we all have to walk around with our national ID card pinned to our lapel. (I hope that isn't gonna happen in my lifetime.)
29
Oregometry, we are all Todd Mecklem.
30
His name is Todd Mecklem. His name is Todd Mecklem. His name is Todd Mecklem.
31
Also, I might actually start going by "Johann" now. It would be a nice excuse to wear frilly shirts and play the harpsichord.

I also tend to be amused/impressed by how many people choose to be non-anonymous on Twitter. You can easily make an account without your name on it, but many people choose otherwise.
32
@JStreckert: Word. I wasn't actually taking it personally (I totally know I'm not a fuckwad!). I was just trying to explore the logic by using examples. And, rereading one of your sentences, I'm now seeing the difference between, "is a great way to not be a fuckwad" and "is the only way to not be a fuckwad." (I was basically reading it as the latter. And I* apologize for that!)

*note: ROM is apologizing. But not Ryan.
33
So we all agree with the Eugenicist then, Jawohl?
34
I'm completely with Graham on this one, although I can track my internet stupidity back to 1985.

If you, the internet content provider, don't let me say silly, potentially offensive stuff, I just won't look at your ads any more- there's always some place else willing to fill the void. It's up to to decide what you want for your business model.
35
I'd just like to add one other thing:

I've worked in a recruiting department, and I've led a few hiring drives, so I've seen and sifted through thousands of applicants. Since everyone's materials look more or less the fucking same, the first thing I do separate the chaff is search for you on Facebook, then Myspace. If you have an unlocked Myspace, you basically lose already. Anyway, I gather info about you from both, looking for any little thing that will let me put you in the "no" pile. If there's nothing on on FB/Myspace, you're googled, maybe with Portland or Oregon after your name. Finding a huge body of online comments tied directly to your name will a) amuse me for a few minutes, and b) allow me to put you in the "no" pile because you've proven you lack judgment.

I would bet that lots and lots of other people in my position are doing something very similar to sort through the billion apps you get when you post to Craigslist.

With apologies to the reporters and other people who make their living online, but might one day want a lamer office job, from a hiring standpoint: leaving a clear paper trail on the internet is getting closer and closer to the digital equivalent of a face tattoo.
36
Colin’s last post says what I always expected was true, and smirk’s defense of anonymity was especially important to me because I have previously given her a hard time in the comments when I felt she deserved it. I think Graham summarized my philosophy on this perfectly, which is no surprise because he is my second favorite commenter.

Blabby is my very favorite even though I disagree with most of what he says. Watching fellow liberals actually have to defend their positions is my idea of entertainment, and sometimes learning happens. Watching two hippies talk to each other about politics can be painfully dull. I like this site better when there is a little more trolling going on, even if I am the one being baited.

I look forward to the return of unregistered comments. I am not a brand, I am not in it for the glory, I just enjoy participating in a thoughtful debate (with swearing) now and again and I would prefer not to be the next Brian Owendoff.
37
Welcome back, unregistered comments.
38
Woot!
39
i'm gonna say naughty mean things
40
Well of course you are, anonie.
Good fah yew.
41
@CC: BUT IT WASN'T ME! IT WAS SOME OTHER TODD MECKLEM! I hate that guy!
42
I sincerely hope this isn't the moment it all goes to shit.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.