Slashdot Log In
Washingtonpost.com Wants Identities of Posters
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue May 06, 2008 09:54 PM
from the solved-problem dept.
from the solved-problem dept.
mytrip recommends a News.com account of a panel discussion in which the Washington Post's online executive editor Jim Brady argued against anonymity on his site. He's welcome to try to carve out a space for civilized discourse, but it seems that he can't help alienating the Net-savvy whenever he opens his mouth to speak of it. "... he would like to see a technology that could identify people who violate site standards — and if need be — automatically kick them off for good. ... Brady also lamented that closing user accounts doesn't keep bad eggs off a site. They just come back and create new ones ... Brady believes that in the next five years people will be required to identify themselves in some way at many sites. 'I don't know whether we do it with a credit card number, a driver's license or passport ...'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Yeah, great (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, great (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Yeah, great (Score:5, Insightful)
If this guy wants paid registration, he should just say so and have that, where people cough up $10 a year or something for access to the site's contents.
Instead, perhaps he should do what a lot of websites do -- require either a "non-free" E-mail address, or manual approving for a user account if its a Yahoo/Hotmail/Gmail account. This is not a 100% measure, as there are lots of people who pay for their Yahoo or Hotmail accounts, but its a measure good enough to do what this guy wants. Should a non-free provider start having abuse problems, add that domain on the "manual approve" list, and call it done.
Parent
Re:Yeah, great (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, those bastards are letting the googlebot freely roam their pages, but when a user follows the resulting link, he's slapped with the registration page. It's dishonest if you ask me. I don't even click on a New York Times link anymore. Mind you, I know I can just select the googlebot in my User Agent Switcher and get right in, but I don't need them to get the news, and I want them to know that.
Parent
Re:Yeah, great (Score:5, Informative)
A) The newspaper under discussion here is the Washington Post, not the New York Times.
B) The Times dropped their registration required policy some time ago.
Parent
Re:Yeah, great (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked at washingtonpost.com a decade ago, and knew Brady before he left the company and later returned. Back then we scoffed at The New York Times and their registration, flatly declaring that The Post would never require registration to
view articles. Of course, they implemented required registration after I left, and I've stopped reading the site on principle for that reason.
It was also said that we didn't want unmoderated user comments on the site because of (a) the liability, (b) the lack of credibility and (c) the troll factor. But users wanted it, so The Post is simply trying to balance the desires of its readers with its distaste for unmoderated comments. The things that keep the traffic up are the things The Post will swallow, no matter how distasteful. There was a time when The Post tried to prevent Matt Drudge from linking to its articles, but it couldn't get around the fact that he sent a huge amount of traffic to the site in those days, so it gave in.
Will authenticated posts happen in the next few years? Who can say? They'll probably try it, and if it's ineffective at addressing their concerns or traffic drops, they'll switch back. I don't really see it becoming an industry-wide norm unless someone loses a high-profile/high-dollar court case because of unauthenticated posts.
In any case, I can assure you that Brady is no fool, he knows he has competition (heck, he's from NY originally, and left The Post to work for one of its major competitors) and his intentions here are not "evil."
Signed, Anonymous
(Pun Intended)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I'm all for that. I'm sick and tired of the countless trolls on so many unmoderated (or essentially unmoderated) newspaper forums.
It's good to be worried about identity theft, but trusting one of the nation's major newspapers with your credit card number isn't asking a lot, unless you consider buying anything online from
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not just have a subscription with the paper automatically give you an account with the newspaper, then? That would at least partially solve the problem as you'd have the subscription info to tie the account to the person getting the paper.
Re:Yeah, great (Score:4, Interesting)
What I'd like to see is a more "public" internet. Register your name, address, drivers license, arc of your piss, etc. at some place like Verisign. Let them hold on to all of the information, and on the web just go by a first name and a user ID. (I'm assuming that security happens by magic, and that these details are kept private.)
On the internet, everyone is an anonymous coward, and people behave differently when they have perfect anonymity. (It breeds asshats - check my posting history, I assure you that I have more kneejerk rants on this site than anyplace in the oxygenated world.)
If through some system, people were the same individuals everywhere they ent on the net - you only have a single account, everywhere - I bet they would behave differently. Even if there was no way to trace each netizen back to their flesh-and-blood doppelganger, it would be an improvement. It would let you ban people, not user accounts, or e-mail or IP addresses.
In some ways, this seems to be the original "spirit" of the internet, if there is such a thing. Someone more knowledgeable (read: older) can chime in, but relics like finger and .plan files seem to hint at this.
Parent
Re:Yeah, great (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because you are a moron who can't tie his own shoes, does not mean I have a problem!
Seriously, you are spot on and more or less said what I wanted to say. Anonymity begets asshattery (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/) and I have my own history of Slashdot flamewars. People have a general tendency to behave badly when dealing with people outside their monkey sphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html) When combined with anonymity - and the lack of accountability that comes with it - people become seriously nasty. Debates that in meatspace would go like "I disagree because..." turn into "listen you fucktard...".
I'm not for eradicating anonymity as it can be needed in some cases, but throwing anonymity into generic, mundane interaction is simply bad for the state of human interaction.
Parent
Re:Yeah, great (Score:5, Interesting)
Anonymity begets freedom. What you and the other guy are championing is the internet equivalent of an ID tattoo from birth.
You guys need to think about the consequences of what you are suggesting.
Weigh up the benefits of an internet "with less asshats" vs an internet with "complete government and corporate control"
Which one do you choose?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the internet, everyone is an anonymous coward, and people behave differently when they have perfect anonymity. (It breeds asshats - check my posting history, I assure you that I have more kneejerk rants on this site than anyplace in the oxygenated world.)
And that's a good thing!
I recently received this comment
"haven't got the guts to show your face i see!! thats cos if i found you id KICK YOUR FUCKING ASS!!!"
for exercising my free speech. (Burning a US flag)
People just aren't responsible enough to be trusted with not having anonymity. Sure you get asshats and they piss me off as well but overall we are better off than if we didn't have the option of anonymity.
Re:Yeah, great (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you nuts? What happens when you decide to inform someone on the internet of your opinion regarding GWB and his ridiculous "Warr on Terrah" and that person just happens to have links to GWB and decides to give his "old college buddy' at Versign a call and have them yank your "internet priveleges"
From then on you become persona non-gratis and you can't even get on the internet and raise a good old fashioned grassroots stink campaign.
Good lord, what you are suggesting is a fascist dictators wet dream
Good grief, it is true. You are either an utter moron or a clueless teenager.
The original "spirit of the internet" (post arpanet) was to promote the free and unrestricted exchange of information.
Just because a bunch of money craving fascists have come along in the past few years and decided that the internet is something that they need to control and monetize doesn't make this sort of crap right.
If you want guaranteed safety then stick to TV.
If you want to explore the world (the good and the bad of it) without viewing it through the filtered portal that is provided by big media then we have the internet.
The day the internet gets controlled for the purpose of sanitizing it is the day the undernet is born (and I'm not referring to the irc network by that name)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yeah, great (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech even when you don't care for what you are hearing.
If you think GNAA, goatse, etc. are the worst of slashdot, you haven't brought a brain to the table.
To name a silly but sad example, I was participating in a discussion on a games board regarding `Disgaea: Afternoon of Darkness' and this particular discussion related to the pronunciation of `Disgaea'. I tried to post something which contained the phonetic spelling `Dis-gay-uh', and got a warning message that my text contained something probably offensive and probably violating the TOS and would probably get me banned and would definitely be forwarded to someone for review. (The same idiotic software bans the word `wakarimashita' - Japanese for `understand', presumably for the bolded section). I chose the only reasonable alternative and self-censored my would-be comment.
Fuck censorship. I read slashdot at -1. If that means I have to occasionally skip past the really offensive trolls, whatever. I've been reading netnews, etc. for over two decades. The ratio of noise is roughly constant (once advertising SPAM is removed), so it's not like it's a growing problem. I don't consider it a "problem" at all.
Free speech is still free speech even^H^H^H^Hespecially when you don't agree with it. Asshats are entitled to their opinion even when they do not choose to sign their name. The unique feature of the internet is that with anonymity, we can rise beyond distinctions of race, gender, physical appearance, etc. That's much too important to throw away.
On the Internet noone knows you're a dog. Woof Woof. http://www.xemacs.org/People/steve.baur/ [xemacs.org]
Parent
Good for the gander (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for the gander (Score:5, Funny)
Sure they will! But from now on everything will be attributed to "DeepThroat69".
Parent
Re:Good for the gander (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be like a librarian asking for censorship.
No, it would be like the librarian asking for quiet in the reading room. It's not the dissemination of ideas or the idea of anonymous communication that bothers him. It's the disruption of discourse by people who refuse to adhere to simple rules.
Parent
It would make Slashdot polls scientific finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What he should be trying to do is foster a more positive, creative troll like we have here at Slashdot. Point out the benefits that good creative trolling can bring, along wit
trust him with my details? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There does not seem to be anything remotely approaching a complete solution. There are easy ways to increase the cost of disruption that don't increase the cost of cooperation too much. A CAPTCHA
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No Problem (Score:5, Funny)
What a crybaby... (Score:3, Insightful)
We know how people will use the web, and how they won't. If he can't adapt to the technology, he should stop bitching and get the HELL off the web, and go back to what he knows: newspapers. If he can't make it there these days either, then... "WAAAAAH!!!" yet another company fails to adapt, and everybody will go on to the next. He will be a bit less rich next year. Am I supposed to feel guilty? Strange, but for some reason I don't feel anything like that at all.
What the hell does he expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, that's life. I wish I could figure out a way to keep every kook and asshole from coming near me but it's impossible. Why is it any different on the internet?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Please. You mean to tell me you've encountered as many kooks and assholes in your entire life as you have in one day of reading c|net comments, Digg, and Slashdot?
Oh, that's nothing. You've clearly never read the YouTube comments. And strangely enough, those of some major newspapers and media outlets. I can't remember exactly where it was, but I think it was ABC News (America) that was just full of insane people on every thread about the Democratic primaries. The "nerd oriented" sites have nothing on those which appeal to the general population. Which is odd, because I thought nerds were experts at being trolls and anti-social loons, but you learn something new eve
Not everyone has figured out user moderation (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people associate bad Internet behavior with anonymity. That's true to some extent - obviously people are much less civil when dealing remotely and dispassionately with other people. Put a random Internet troll in a biker bar, and I guarantee you he'll be *much* more polite to his fellow patrons. But Slashdot has proven that you don't need to lose anonymity to create an effective flame and troll filter. Let your most trusted users do it.
I'm always surprised that more sites don't copy this system. Or maybe someone has, and I just haven't heard of it?
Re:Not everyone has figured out user moderation (Score:5, Insightful)
We should distinguish between something that works, and something that works well. Slashdot works.
Parent
Re:Not everyone has figured out user moderation (Score:5, Interesting)
You haven't read digg recently, have you? Slashdot is in Valhalla compared to digg's moderation system, and that's because moderation merits in Slashdot are hierarchical - the first moderators were wisemen chosen by the Mighty Taco Himself. Besides, anyone can metamoderate. If they don't it's their problem.
In contrast, digg is open to hordes of uncontrollable moderation, and this is specially true when a scientology article gets modded down by the Hubbard hordes.
Parent
Re:Not everyone has figured out user moderation (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And subtly ironic and satirical jokes modded down are usually ok because it will get balanced by a funny mod from someone that did get the joke. True flamebaits and trolls rarely ever get that counter-balancing positive mod. And if a comment is too subtly sarcasti
Re:Not everyone has figured out user moderation (Score:5, Interesting)
I meta-moderate whenever Slashdot indicates I can. In general, I'd guess I see one of these every 20-30 moderations (that's a rough estimate - I haven't kept track exactly), so I think it tends to balance out the vast majority of the time. That still doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In general, it's much more likely to occur with a post espousing a minority opinion here on Slashdot. i.e. pro-Microsoft, anti-OSS, political conservative / republican, religious, don't-believe-in-global-warming, think-Linux-sucks, etc, etc...
Parent
It's better than anything else (Score:3, Interesting)
Until we find something better Slashdot has proven to work better than all the alternatives, and they do spend time tuning as well...
Cell phone number (Score:4, Interesting)
The easiest way is to authenticate by cell phone number. When you register for a site, your password is sent to your cell phone as an SMS message. One registration per cell phone number. Yes, it's possible to buy multiple SIM cards to get more phone numbers, but they're not free.
This costs the site about $0.05 for each message sent. For sites that derive some value from having members, it's worth it.
Slashdot would have paid about $50,000 or so in SMS fees by now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cell phone number (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Won't work as intended (Score:5, Insightful)
So... newspaper cite will still be cesspool of hate. Fair-minded users who value privacy will still ditch. Phhht.
The real lesson is that old-media sites still haven't learned what makes internet comment boards successful, and they revert to old-school control tactics that won't help and will harm.
Moderation is the only way (Score:3, Informative)
Being an Online Editor seems Impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
My experience goes, the reason people don't some things at the dinner table is fear they well be attacked and bashed over the head with the (real-life-equivalent) of a steel pipe. In real life, people can't readily speak their mind at times. Now, perhaps this can be viewed as a good because it keeps descenting views quiet. Me? I'd rather hear the KKK and neo-Nazi members speak. Sure, there's the risk that they'll be able to recruit more members. But, history has shown that desegregation and other *real-world* things are what have life-changing effects on people's opinions on things.
Now, maybe the internet is really so revolutionarily different that there is no history to extrapolate from. But, if that's the case, it still seems the case that the good would intrinsically outweight the bad. Will people's feelings be hurt? Will there be trolls and flamers who are more interested in creating dischord than having actual discussions? Sure. That's the reason for things like moderation, editors, etc. The only thing attaching real-world identification to a username will do is either (a) keep the threat of steel pipes to the head from other users running so high that we're back to the self-censorship that leads nowhere (and open up places the Washington Post to wrongful death suits) or (b) keep the threat of editors and their reign of power so high that some people will stop posting entirely.
In short, being an online editor against a seemingly endless flow of trolls, spam, etc seems impossible. But, instead of trying to revert back to the comfortable and easy, perhaps more consideration should be done on tackling the problem by engaging it the hard way? Ie, hire more editors and stop treating online posting as some quirky, cheap add-on that you can control with a few lowly staff or some magical technological fix.
Ever read washingtonpost.com's comments? (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess what they're anonymous and they're basically worthless, consider the lack of any meaningful moderation system ala Slashdot. Comments in articles quickly become long, barely threaded and filled with idotic or worse comments.
It's the rule of internet forums, without some party moderating the debate, the troll wins and the comments suck.
Slashdot's answer is to allow the mob (users) to moderate, but Brady, since he's from the more traditional media, is wary of the mob. The mob has all sorts of biases and tends to reinforce its beliefs. It may be interesting discourse, but it can be difficult to get a balanced discourse -- and this is something the Post is committed to, for better or/and worse.
End result: The Post has moved slowly on user moderation and tried to keep moderation in the hands of a limited number of editors, which becomes overwhelming with so many posts and so many trolls.
His answer, is to require require people's ID to post on his company's web site. Throw in a little potential shame of trolling and see worthless comments decrease -- certainly people will think about them more.
Honestly, I think Brady's wrong on this point, I think the right answer is closer to Slashdot than what he envisions, but it's silly to try to slur the man as an enemy of free speech. Remember he's talking about the policies of the Washington Post on the Washington Post web site, not for the internet as a whole.
The biggest enemy to free speech can sometimes simply be too much noise.
Oh, and on a related note, you may be interested in reading an article Brady wrote on the event that CNET describes as a "notable history." It's available here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021100840.html [washingtonpost.com]
bzzzt !!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, in checking TFA, the man said:
"I think part of the problem is that people aren't held accountable on the Web," Brady said. "People say things online they would never say when disagreeing with someone at the dinner table. I think heated debate is fine, but when there are (flame wars), many people won't take part for fear they will be attacked and bashed over the head wi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot's answer is to allow the mob (users) to moderate, but Brady, since he's from the more traditional media, is wary of the mob. The mob has all sorts of biases and tends to reinforce its beliefs. It may be interesting discourse, but it can be difficult to get a balanced discourse -- and this is something the Post is committed to, for better or/and worse.
I respect the editor wanting to get balance, though he needs to be careful to not mistake it for fairness; if everyone and his dog are dumping on a message, it might just be because it's a pile of stupid rubbish. But still, fairness and balance are things that it is important to respect.
I suppose the easiest way to deal with this is for there to be a slashdot-like mechanism - it does work well most of the time - and for there to be some users (probably a small number of Post staffers) who can act as superm
Survival of the fittest (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
none of the above does anything to stop abusers.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Solution: only PAID subscribers can post. (Score:5, Insightful)
So what will happen? Sites are welcome to create more complex authentication and registration schemes... but as long as other sites don't have such schemes, online participants will naturally gravitate to the sites that have the lowest barriers to entry. So the successful sites will be those that make it very easy to participate.
Of course, we already see this online. Wikipedia and Slashdot are two examples of sites that don't try to prevent anonymous contributions... instead they rely on community self-policing to filter the useful contributions from the trolls. Ultimately, that's the solution: it keeps the barrier to participation low (so you can build up a thriving community), and the mechanism of burying crappy contributions inherently highlights better contributions.
The reason that many sites don't like this answer is that it is hard to generate a useful community (for one thing, you can't treat your users as merely cattle to squeeze money out of--you have to actually build value to keep them visiting your site).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)