Sun papers to eliminate comments.
A good step in reducing the steaming pile that media comment sections have become. I also heartily endorse the movement away from anonymous cowards.
As Mark Steyn notes, if you don’t have a name you have no skin in the game.
It’s a good idea, one less place for those afflicted with HDS, (Harper Derangement Syndrome), to spew their hateful screed.
I always use my full and proper name when posting.
Well maybe not. But out of respect to the anonymity I am allowed, I try not to post anything that I wouldn’t want my mother to read.
That’s too bad, actually. I have a habit of reading news articles upside-down, as a way of taking the temperature of public response to a story or commentary. Naturally, you have to make allowances for the publication and the audience: Sun readers and CBC readers respond to stories about Stephen Harper, for example, in very different ways.
I never really minded the anonymous blibbering and slagging all that much – it’s just a kind of static.
What I’d rather see is a comments section that requires users to use actual names. Sadly, the only public platform for that is Facebook, which has many issues of its own.
Darn…the comments are frequently the best part of the articles.
I love reading articles upside down! Now why bother at all
I completely disagree.
No comments means I am far less likely to read it.
It’s like they are putting their hands over their ears and shouting “la la la ” instead of listening to thier readers input.
Sorry – the liberal mob would be out for my hide given what I do for a living and especially given who I work for. Not using my real name anytime soon.
Agree with Sid Vicious. Telling the truth nowadays can get you into a heap of trouble in today’s liberal totalitarianism ethos.
This is a bad move. The Sun editorial board never considers those who DON’T participate in social media. I stay away from twitter and facebook like the plague, and reluctantly joined discus and LinkedIn only out of necessity.
The comments section served as a real gauge of public opinion, even though some of the comments are just noise. I can get a better feel of the public reaction to a story from the comments section — more than I can trust a journalist with their “some say” or “many says” style of reporting.
I realize I also post anonymously, which is why I have always tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to be respectful. Still, there’s enough clues out there in cyberspace for anyone to be able to figure out who I am if they really wanted to.
But it’s apparent that Kate doesn’t appreciate anonymous comments, so I’ll respect her wishes and just shut up now.
“I also heartily endorse the movement away from anonymous cowards.”
I await the posting of your recent photograph, home address/telephone number, and full name as a demonstration of your own stellar courage.
Why not, eh lance? What could possibly go wrong?
Sorry. In my previous comment, I didn’t realize it was Lance that posted this. Apologies to Kate, as I do not know how she actually feels about this, although one would presume that she would agree.
Ok, NOW I’ll shut up.
Deranged out of their minds liberals beleive everything their told by the news media or the liberla special interest groups they belong to so delusional their out of their minds which most liberals are
There’s no good solution to this problem, unfortunately. Comment sections have become sewers and being anonymous (no consequences for moronic behaviour) exacerbates the problem. OTOH, some people who are not trolls or people with rage/mental illness issues (including political partisans) have reasons for wanting anonymity. And these quality commenters often are more knowledgable than the reporters and columnists. Reporters usually have only a superficial knowledge of things beyond politics and their personal interests. So, either way good commenters who add interesting points are driven away – by morons or by lack of anonymity.
My solution: let anonymous posting continue but require real names via registration (not uncommon) but let anonymity be a privilege. This privilege should be taken away from the morons after one warning. So your real name will be posted if you continue abusing the privilege and you will have to suffer any consequences that flow from the that bad publicity.
I honestly do not understand why Lance has the keys to this blog. There is so little of his writings I can agree with and much of what he writes is not only scary, it’s incredibly ignorant. The idea that anonymity is cowardice is beyond ridiculous, dangerous, and plays into the hands of the people who want to enforce orthodoxy of thought. Maybe Lance has never heard of the Federalist Papers or the tradition of anonymous writings prior to the Revolutionary War in the US. Maybe Lance thinks that Chinese dissidents should be manly enough to put their real names on their writings. I don’t really know what he thinks or even if he is thinking but the idea that a name matters to an idea is ridiculous. If the swamp of trolls in places like the SUN comments section is the price for a real, open exchange of ideas facilitated by technology then I humbly suggest it is an incredibly small price to pay. As Kate has so often written, Cyberbullying involves a victim actively looking to be bullied. If you don’t like the comments, don’t read them, but don’t empower the thought police because you’re offended by the trolls.
I was going to tell the Sun they made a smart move but I couldn’t find the comments section.
Years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper in regard to President Reagan firing the PATCO air traffic controllers who defied the law by not returing to work as directed. The phone calls and other intimidation I received from the looney left were fast and harsh. I soon learned that the left unleashes its brownshirts against anyone who does not agree with them. You see it today in spades. The left just can’t be trusted to control its inherent violent tendencies.
I suspect, like NP and the Globe, our betters were getting fed up with being contradicted and often proven wrong in the comments section.
I understand the Sun’s position, on the other hand I do not want to go back to the days of being at the papers discretion on printing “Letters to the Editor”. Most of us here have had posts not make it through the moderators on CBC articles, and they can only be deemed innocent in nature.
Anonymity is sometimes the only way people can speak online without fear of their employers reactions; or worse, the HRC.
Well said.
In addition, Mark Steyn makes a very good living from writing and putting his name to his words facilitates that remuneration.
I won’t pretend to compare my writing to Steyn’s, but I don’t get paid to write anything so it’s an apples to oranges comparison that Steyn makes, especially his ‘skin-in-the-game’ remark.
Google-fu not engaged yet this morning Oz?
Unable to click the link that is my name at the top?
I respect Sun’s position since it is a private company, the CBC has no legitimate reason since it is owned by us. There has been many articles on the CBC that warranted comment, and they didn’t allow the option.
This is a tough one. I suppose it boils down to what the agenda is for the blogger and what they’d like to see from the comments section. If it’s hassle free, raw, politically incorrect, honest opinions, then anonymity certainly provides a line of defense against home or workplace harrasment for (assumedly) unpopular opinions. And sometimes it simply takes someone expressing what they genuinely feel to release the floodgates for others to agree with them against the bullying “received wisdom” pushed by the msm and the lib/left. That itself is helpful and gives one an added level of confidence in expressing those opinions in other forums. On the other hand, if a commenter is simply unleashing a stream of invective and profanity, (which would be most of the comments from the lib/left) then I have no problem with the moderator simply deleting the comments.
I certainly express my opinions under my own name in other forums, and provided one is expressing those opinions rationally and politely have never felt a need to much alter that expression from anything I’d post here beyond some of the sarcastic humor we all like to indulge.
re: Sun papers to eliminate comments
“Why this blog?
Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media
and politicians alike have told me “what Canadians think”. In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio – “You don’t speak for me.”
~Kate McMillan
Good comment, Kate.
Heavens, I never thought of those arguments for anonymity at all.
You might get sued for having an opinion others don’t like. Cough.
You might get a wiki about you. Cough.
You might have to be self-employed to support your opinions. Cough.
You might even be held to account.
That’s the price of being counted.
Anything else is just literal masturbation.
You might have Muslims come to your home and murder everyone in it.
Yes, it actually happened to a family in the U.S. in the early Oughties just as I started blogging. People used anonymous nics for a reason back then and the reason still holds.
Well, lance, I couldn’t find a physical address home/office or good recent photo of you.
Courage, lance, courage.
I am against banning anonymity on the web for the same reason I am against open voting in labor unions. It would not end abuse, just shift where it happens to the real world.
No potential employer, lender, landlord, etc should be able to easily blow off applicants because they are easily identifiable as Conservative, or Christian, or pro-gun, or anti-abortion, etc, etc. in the blogosphere.
I am sure many Islamists would just love to track down those most vocal against them.
Want to discuss challenging our tax laws with the like-minded? I am sure Revenue Canada would love to know exactly who you are.
You don’t believe in global warming? We don’t hire people like that here.
Nope, once again, I refuse to lose a freedom because a few hateful *ssholes are irresponsible with it.
Oz, I don’t have a recent photo of myself, I don’t take pictures.
Click the ‘Contact Us’ link.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
I must admit it is somewhat puzzling, given this post topic, that sda allows anonymous commenting. Obviously they do see the need for it. Unless this a foreshadowing of a policy change.
One note for consideration: introverts, who are poorly understood by non-introverts, will likely abandon comment sections without anonymous commenting. Since introverts think more deeply and analytically about issues that will certainly make comments less interesting. Introverts are over represented in careers in science, technology and engineering, for instance. But I’m sure social science and humanities students/graduates will provide endlessly entertaining emotional, moralizing hissy fits to fill that gap.
You can just scan your driver’s licence picture in.
That way, anyone who wants to target you won’t get someone else who just came out of your office address by mistake.
Unless and until web sites start requiring you to upload a scanned photo of government-issued ID before giving you an account, “requiring users to use their real name” is meaningless. It is literally the work of seconds to create an entirely believable fake profile on any social media site and use it to comment with.
“You might have to be self-employed to support your opinions. Cough.” Isn’t this why so many doctors have left the country.
another name in the coffin of free speech.
Canadians love their genetically retarded foreign Monarch yet despise free speech.
Yes.
Many of the reasons for anonymous web commenting are the same reasons for anonymous voting.
Do you have a conservative election sign on your lawn? Yes.
Is it possible that your property might be vandalized because of it? Yes.
Do many people refuse to display such signs because they want their political affiliation to remain anonymous? Yes.
Do some people have no clue as to why, and call them cowards? Yes.
There is a difference between courage and foolishness.
The courageous have a choice, the fool does not.
SDA rarely gets the amount of personal attacks, trolls and crap that media sites seem to attract, therefore anonymity doesn’t detract from SDA.
When someone goes over the line the ban hammer comes out. It’s permanent, multi-layered and effective.
I don’t understand why the media sites don’t use similar aggressive techniques, but it probably has something to do with legal and/or human resources.
There are a few more levels of authentication a website could use:
1. Verification codes via an SMS to a mobile phone.
2. Verification codes mailed to a physical address.
#2 might seem far fetched but one travel/hosting website I belong to uses it.
Neither are fullproof but do add some skin to the game.
I do agree with the general notion that comment sections on most websites are often the foulest sewers of humanity. The worst of the worst IMO is any video on YouTube that is remotely political. Wow, the vile filth that emanates from people’s minds there is truly horrific.
I’m getting a little sick and tired of this anonymity b.s. From our self righteous “skin in the game” brethren and sisters.
Let it go already. You use your real name? Well good for you!! If you’re like me then you’ve experienced first hand the lengths progressives will go to make sure they get their point across.
Am I a coward? Don’t ever say it to my face. But I also understand that I have a family to protect and it’d be damn selfish of me to expose them to the whims and fancies of a bored A-hole who has nothing to lose or worse…a bureaucrat armed with a computer.
Further- I also have the misfortune of sharing the same name with someone who is, putting it politely, a ne’er do well.
It doesn’t require much imagination to understand what a colossal pain that’s been in my life as far as “Geez…sorry about that, I’m looking for the other (Fill in the blank)”. I think you can see where I’m going with this.
Anyways. Nuff said.
Well, I don’t imagine you’ll be surprised if I disagree with you about sda. It’s the only place I’ve been called a cnt (twice) and a btch. Frankly, I wouldn’t want people here to know my real identity. I sincerely think some of them have mental health issues.
Your regulars have driven off some very good commenters over the last few years. ET and Vitruvius to name two but there’s many others whose comments are missed. Getting rid of a few of your most obnoxious commenters might have lessened this trend. Not only is there no opposing views here, there’s also fewer and fewer alternative conservative, moderate conservative and libertarian views. I miss the previous livelier discussion that had a broader section of viewpoints. It’s now a very thin slice of acceptable political discourse.
I have a feeling this has to be more about mitigating liability exposure than anything else.
No comments mean that obvious omissions will not be immediately noted. Yes, comment threads can be a steaming pile, but they contain far more critical analysis than you will normally find in any mainstream article.
Heh, the media still can not get that whole thing called Internet, voluntarily resigning from free content generation. Although, abundance and instantaneous of opinion in today’s world of electronic communication make them almost worthless, without distinction between been written by a commenter or a journalist. What really is of value is the access to connect to other people and the media don’t get this simple fact.
I feel the same way. Sure, for those who already have skin in the game, like journalists and bloggers already using their own name, what difference does is make to use their own names when commenting?
For many of the rest of us, our political affiliation can have a negative impact at work. I live in a blue state and most of the time I don’t want co-workers to know if I am red or blue, it can have an impact on how you are perceived. The same goes for neighbours and acquaintances. If I used my real name in comments, then that goes out the window, anyone who wants to know can instantly see I am a libertarian conservative and I have a huge animosity towards socialism, progressivism, and leftism in general. But my work colleagues don’t need to know that and there are other times I don’t want people to know. So stop with the sanctimonious “skin in the game”.
I agree that “skin in the game” would stop a lot of the maliciousness in comments. But at the same time it’s not anonymity per se that is the real problem, it’s idiots who are malicious and use the opportunity to reveal themselves. For many of us anonymity makes no difference to what we say. For instance, I have no idea what the initials EBD are for, and I really don’t care, the individual EBD writes thoughtful and non-malicious comments and AFAIK he has plenty of “skin in the game” without having to reveal his true identity. I am in the same way, hence SCF.
I agree, for the most part, with you and Oz.
I never thought much about anonymity as a means of covering my tracks, as it were. I run two blogs: one is about cars @ blownfx.blogspot.ca and the other is about politics @ michaelxglenister.blogspot.com.
The political blog is only a couple of months old and are from my own private diary but I will get into current events soon. My name and address are in the blog profile. The car blog is only of interest to locals and everyone knows me but even others would have no problem tracking me down.
It is not important, as far as I am concerned, that everyday comment readers know my personal name. If I say some something that is attacking someone personally I can see that the site administrator should know who I am and can be held accountable. If I am not attacking anyone personally then the only important thing is the truthfulness of the facts presented. My identity, then, is of no consequence. However, I am open to counter arguments.
Pre-election, it had reached the point of absurdity. Reasonably sane dialogue and comments had been completely swamped by the basement dwellers.
Post-election they might be able to revive it.
At 87, and good eyesight, the captcha wouldn’t accept me. But I continued as time means nothing to me. Maybe Sun should try this one.
The unspoken truth of the Net is that everything you write in the form of opinion is about yourself – your attitude, your knowledge, your limitations and even your not so secret desires. If someone attacks, offends or just troll that’s his/her problem with the above attributes.
You can present info on an amber square ( for example) and there still will be people trying to prove that it is a cinnamon circle.
I used to write letters-to-the-editors of newspapers and magazines. You had to include your phone number and address,and you were contacted more often than not, particularly if you were new. I never asked for anonymity.
Then, I began on UseNet (as your grandparents). If people think that on-line commenting is the Wild West, they simply weren’t on UseNet. No editors. No corporate structure. No lawyers. No HR Commissions.
I started with my real name. Then, my soon-to-be ex-wife started getting late night phone calls (her name was in the phone book). Needless to say, in the middle of a child custody battle, it was just another stress to try to explain to a $300 an hour lawyer what the internet was.
So, bravo to the True Names. Maybe I’ll join you, but for now, I’ll live under the delusion that I am continuing a time-honoured tradition of publishing pithy comments anonymously, so that my words are weighed, not who I am.
Well all I can say is that I prefer articles that allow comments. Trolls and all.
Anonymity and privacy are not the same thing in my view. I don’t care if people know what underwear I own, that doesn’t mean I want it splashed all over the internet.
I’m not afraid of trolling idiots but they haven’t earned the right to know me, any more than a telephone solicitor has. OTOH, I love giving it back to trolls, watching their shrillness rise with every comment, while I get a good laugh.
I’ll miss that. I think this is a win for the bad guys, they got to shut me up, if only at the Sun and if only temporarily.
I hope it’s only a temporary thing with security protocols taking care of the malicious idiots. I say let them have their say, have at them, get them to do their worst, so the world can see what impotent & ignorant oafs they are, quite uninterested in actually discussing and arguing issues.
I have mixed feelings on the matter. If I post on the CBC regardless of using an alias or not, if my comment doesn’t fit the anti-Conservative, hate Harper agenda of the CBC, then the “moderator” censors the post. If the theme of comments seems to be leaning even slightly towards pro-Conservative, the CBC quickly closes the article to comments, while conversely if the article is over the top, rabid anti-Harper the CBC leaves it on the front page and open to comments for days and days, as long as they remain vile and hateful.
How about having to register with your S.I.N. with some kind of verification, like photo ID as someone suggested before being allowed to post – that would go along way to eliminating foreigners and paid U.S. special interest groups from infiltrating and trying to skew the comments….just a thought.
I love you too man!