Voices / Column

Real names, accountability, and a civil dialogue online

By Jeff Potter/The Commons

Brattleboro

We don’t receive a huge number of comments on our website — 10 to 15 on a good week, maybe. By some news website standards, that volume would likely be perceived as a failure.

I say it’s working.

The comments that we get are overwhelmingly constructive and well thought out. They’ve jump-started our letters section considerably.

I attribute most of those good qualities to our pretty-darned-strict terms of service.

We ask for your real name and where you live — which is no different from what we ask from people who write letters to this section — and I consider every comment for publication in the print paper, which gives it a new and different audience.

We’ve been chugging along for some months now with these rules, so it came as somewhat of a shock when a reader going by the screen name “NoWayInVermont” submitted a response to a provocative, heartfelt piece that we published from Leslie Flanagan, who was saying goodbye — and, with some bitter candor, good riddance — to Bellows Falls.

The comment was not about the piece, but about our commenting policy.

“The demand for non-anonymity is quite an effective weapon against honest feedback regarding this piece,” the writer said. “If you have to still live here, how can you leave a sympathetic comment without serious repercussions? The Commons is clearly a journalistic endeavor and can afford anonymity; here it actively works against their interest.

“And yes, I created the username as well as the email account just for these two cents.”

The same writer followed up a day later:

“Cowards at the helm of The Commons:

“I can subscribe anonymously but not comment on a substantive issue without endangering life and limb.

“Cowards.”

I genuinely feel this reader’s anxiety. But if this person is the one who is afraid to leave a comment, however legitimately, how does that make us the cowards?

* * *

The fact of the matter is, online discussions can go wild without some reasonable ground rules.

1 | 2 | 3 | Next

What do you think? Leave us a comment

Comments (2)

Topic: COMM-0165.opin.col.potter

NewestOldestHelpfulUselessPositiveCritical

NoWayInVermont (Windham County) says...

I have no proof of the duplicity, just certainty that it could be done (and have seriously considered it, not to forge an identity but to obscure). I maintain my position that your weekly could be abused by failure to verify "true names", whatever you think that term signifies.Anonymity is part and parcel of the web, and in fact predates its creation--"flame wars" were quite common in 1980s Usenet nerd culture, and no ID was required to enter that culture, just technical sufficiency.As for Read More

I have no proof of the duplicity, just certainty that it could be done (and have seriously considered it, not to forge an identity but to obscure). I maintain my position that your weekly could be abused by failure to verify "true names", whatever you think that term signifies.

Anonymity is part and parcel of the web, and in fact predates its creation--"flame wars" were quite common in 1980s Usenet nerd culture, and no ID was required to enter that culture, just technical sufficiency.

As for other readers, I think they're smarter than I than to initiate much less continue to engage in this conversation. As for the offer of first-person meeting/anonymous-protection-for-the-greater-good, I'm quite sure I'm better off with a No Thank You than any other decision. The original topic concerned an opinion piece and not whistle-blowing.

Thanks for your consideration and discourse. I'll do my best to avoid stupid posts in the future, but no promises ;-0

Reply

Permalink

Flag

00

17th August 2012 11:34pm

NoWayInVermont (Windham County) says...

I apologize for the Cowards post, I was once again ***** off at my circumstances and posted in the heat of the moment.I will not provide further comment on the matter of anonymity--which, until this article, seemed out of the question--or what drives people out of the area, as after a bit of reflection, if I supply substance I will be instantly identified, pseudonym or no.I will say that anyone elected to the Selectboard that doesn't expect vitriol and steps down as the result of such simply Read More

I apologize for the Cowards post, I was once again ***** off at my circumstances and posted in the heat of the moment.

I will not provide further comment on the matter of anonymity--which, until this article, seemed out of the question--or what drives people out of the area, as after a bit of reflection, if I supply substance I will be instantly identified, pseudonym or no.

I will say that anyone elected to the Selectboard that doesn't expect vitriol and steps down as the result of such simply hasn't been on the web since its creation, and thus assumed a position of responsibility for which they were unequipped. Using that extraordinarily poor example (the details of which I am unfamiliar and only read about in the current issue of the Commons) to defend a policy of non-anonymity provides a strawman that would burn at the sound of a skidding tire. Your other talking points would be valid if you actually took steps to ensure that the signers of contributions were who they said they were; I can guarantee from experience that this is not the case.

Admin:

Okay, fair enough. I appreciate the follow-up, the feedback, and caring enough to communicate about our policies. I should say that if what you had to say would identify you, I'm happy to talk to you in confidence and completely off the record, if the incident speaks to a larger picture and it would be helpful for us to know what's going on. I won't print such a conversation (and as such, you can stay permanently anonymous) but do know that my door is open if you think it would help move a story forward in a way. As to the Selectboard member resigning: The point I was trying to make, maybe without enough precision, was the degree of personal attacks on some of these systems — commentary that absolutely transcended relevant criticism of a public figure holding public office. I make a good deal of effort to identify letter writers in all our venues. If you have some demonstrable proof that we have published or posted commentary that is under someone else's name or otherwise inconsistent with the values that I have written about, I would welcome details. Even anonymously! Thanks again. I would love to hear from other readers. Jeff Potter, editor The Commons jeff@commonsnews.org

Reply

Permalink

Flag

00

17th August 2012 4:46pm

All Pages

Page 1 of 1

Add Comment

[cancel]

* Required information

Name: *

Email: * (will not be published)

Website:

Town: *

Country: Select Country US UK Ireland Canada Australia Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua Argentina Armenia Aruba Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Barbuda Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cayman Islands Central African Rep. Chad Chile China Colombia Congo Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominican Rep. DR Congo Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falklands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Holland Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Isle of Man Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordon Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Malaysia Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nepal New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Romania Russia Rwanda Samoa San Marino Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Emirates Togo Trinidad-Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine Uruguay Uzbekistan Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Rating: Select Rating 1 - Dreadful 2 - Poor 3 - Fair 4 - Good 5 - Excellent

Comment: *

 

Notify me of new comments via email.

 

Remember my form details on this computer.

 

I have read and understand the privacy policy. *