We’ve all seen them. Anonymous commenter trolling news websites, posting incendiary comments and setting off a raging debate for pages and pages.
You may have even seen some on this very website.
But what makes an anonymous commenter tick? What’s the motivation for posting a comment without leaving your name behind it? Are these commenter gutless, or are they exercising the same First Amendment rights that Americans have enjoyed for hundreds of years?
Boston.com has posted an interesting analysis that may surprise you — and they even got some of these “anonymous” commenters to go on the record.
“The raging commentary on Obama’s aunt is a microcosm of the thorny problem many websites are grappling with right now over what to do with anonymous comments. At many of these sites, executives have begun to ask themselves: How did we get into this thicket, and is there a sensible way out? But a more basic question needs to be answered first: Who are these people who spend so much of their days posting anonymous comments, and what is motivating them?
Newspapers find themselves in a strange position. People wanting to have a letter to the editor printed in the paper have long been required to provide their name, address, and a daytime phone number. Yet on the websites owned by these same newspapers, all it usually takes to be handed a perpetual soapbox is an active e-mail address.”
Good article from the Boston Globe. But why the focus on the trolls? There are other reasons why someone may want to remain anonymous. If someone is a Salesman or runs a business, and has far left or right political views, then it would be a good to remain anonymous.
Some people are just private by nature and you are not going to get their input if you make them reveal themselves.
The bottom line is that you are not going to hear any views from anyone who’s got something to lose. That greatly narrows down the pool of potential contributors. And so you are not going to get the whole story if you make everyone sign there real names to their comments.
BTW, I loved it when the Greenwich Time articles were linked to the Topix Forums. The trolls didn’t bother me. I simply did not respond to anyone who attacked me, which was fairly infrequent anyway. Maybe what many people have to do is develop some thick skin.
Comment by Tony E Neuman — June 19th, 2010 @ 10:48 am
The less than lukewarm response GT has received for it’s present comment program is a good indication of what the commenting public thinks of it!! That was a good cut and paste from the Boston Globe tho!!
Comment by Idaho — June 21st, 2010 @ 1:04 am
Thanks for your feedback. We’re less than thrilled with the commenting system on our sites, too. Expect to see significant changes soon!
Comment by Keith Whamond — June 21st, 2010 @ 7:32 am
I’m okay with the commenting system… it reminds me that yes there are crazy people out there.
that’s something I forget in my daily life.
Comment by Chanticleer — June 21st, 2010 @ 11:15 am
From the BG article: “While news organizations debate scrapping anonymity….”
That’s hilarious!
From any newspaper on any given day, “…a source who wished to remain anonymous said….”
Bye-bye Deep Throat? I think not. What’s good for thee is good for me. No?
Comment by Anonymous — June 21st, 2010 @ 11:17 am
The trend towards anonymous posting is not just the playground of trolls. The press themselves have been erasing the line between authenticated, and non-authenticated reporting.
For example, http://www.newstimes.com/policereports/article/Erratic-driving-leads-to-New-Milford-DUI-arrest-531593.php – a completely anonymous article printed by the News Times. There was another article today in which the anonymous author stated that the identify of a victim had not been released by police, in the paragraph immediately after they identified the victim by name. Was this a reporter who made this error, or an adjunct.
Consider the other sources the press makes more and more use of. They’ve gone from link to blogs to incorporating comments from unvalidated individuals as new items. Valuable “front page” white space on the NT’s web site is dedicated to tweets from – who knows.
Look at the NT’s blog page – it’s a mixture of both NT employees, and unaffiliated individuals. Are they equal – The NT employees when writing for the NT have to live up to a certain standard. I don’t know if they do for a blog, but the non NT bloggers don’t. I guess to some extend they are just an extended letter to the editor, although they have the power to reject, or not reject, comments back to their blogs, and experience shows that they are not necessarily that open to posting replies that disagree with their opinion.
You look at an ‘online’ newspaper these days and you have no idea if what you are reading represents the paper, or some other party. The press needs to do this because the expenses of publishing free information is an issue, they reduce cost by subsidizing content with cheaper content (unpaid reporters). Perhaps this could even wind up being a bit of a saving grace for the papers – the value in paying for online access will be to get bonafide news, not unaffiliated blogs. Or perhaps [online) newspapers will just become the medium – nothing but news mashups. I tend to think the latter. Gone will be the day when you trusted your reporter since you won’t know who your reporter really is.
As to separating the news from advertisements – that’s another area where the press has erased the lines.
Comment by Tom C — June 21st, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
When the NewsTimes had its own comment page, they also had someone who was willing to be the page administrator and who was there on a daily basis, every day, all day long. This person had the ability to remove commentary and ban the posting names and/or IP addresses of trolls and inflammatory posters. You need to bring back that kind of commentary page and that person who was the administrator because they did their job VERY well.
Comment by Secondhand Rose — June 28th, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
It is called cowardice in many cases. If you are commenting on news that is one thing. Even if you disagree with a politician or someone else’s view you can argue in a constructive, classy way. Many like hiding behind a screen and talking as trashy as possible or making up flat out lies about someone just because you don’t like them or you have no morals. One of the companies you used to deal with called Topix is a perfect example of that. If you have a problem with someone have the guts to confront them face to face.
Comment by Susie — June 29th, 2010 @ 9:50 am