Should we allow anonymous comments or require a name?
Chris Davis, Publisher, Pincher Creek Voice - Question for our readers: should we allow anonymous commenting on our website, provided it is lawful and doesn't violate our terms of service, or should all commenters provide a name?
Anonymous commenters are somewhat exasperating but quite understandable. It is not to everyone's taste or circumstance to stand out in public, and that's okay. A whistleblower might have something to say for instance, and require anonymity to do so. If it is just an excuse for a cheap shot, however, I do think the Voice should probably exercise editorial control and leave it out. Anonymity shouldn't be something to hide behind just for throwing out stink bombs. But good argument is good argument, accredited or not. And so is good information. It is a fine thing to stand up and be recognized in a public forum, though. We are all neighbours. And attaching our names to our opinions is a first step in upholding the right to freedom of expression, not to mention being an important element of democratic process. So, in my opinion, anonymous commenters should be encouraged to identify themselves, but not be otherwise summarily excluded from the conversations if they are reticent to do so.
Mind you I still have to say that there is something vaguely creepy and trollish about anonymous commenters, lobbing fly balls from up behind the bleachers somewhere. It would be altogether more fun and to the point if they'd come out of the shadows and play the game out in the daylight like the rest of us. But wudderya gonna do? Maybe they're blushing brides.
Anonymity is always needed in a situation like this, otherwise people will just make up a name anyways, or worse, put someone else's name to it! To know they are anonymous is of value. Phil has put it nicely!
It's your publication - make the decision based on individual situation as you interpret them.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous commenters are somewhat exasperating but quite understandable. It is not to everyone's taste or circumstance to stand out in public, and that's okay. A whistleblower might have something to say for instance, and require anonymity to do so. If it is just an excuse for a cheap shot, however, I do think the Voice should probably exercise editorial control and leave it out. Anonymity shouldn't be something to hide behind just for throwing out stink bombs. But good argument is good argument, accredited or not. And so is good information. It is a fine thing to stand up and be recognized in a public forum, though. We are all neighbours. And attaching our names to our opinions is a first step in upholding the right to freedom of expression, not to mention being an important element of democratic process. So, in my opinion, anonymous commenters should be encouraged to identify themselves, but not be otherwise summarily excluded from the conversations if they are reticent to do so.
ReplyDeletePhil I don't know if I have ever agreed with you before on any issue but on this one, I agree with you 100%
DeleteMind you I still have to say that there is something vaguely creepy and trollish about anonymous commenters, lobbing fly balls from up behind the bleachers somewhere. It would be altogether more fun and to the point if they'd come out of the shadows and play the game out in the daylight like the rest of us. But wudderya gonna do? Maybe they're blushing brides.
ReplyDeleteWhat these folks said, Chris
ReplyDeleteMuch to do about nothing?!
ReplyDeleteMore comment on this than I've ever seen "Voiced"!!
Anonymous commenting may leave you open to trolling from your competition.
DeleteAnonymity is always needed in a situation like this, otherwise people will just make up a name anyways, or worse, put someone else's name to it! To know they are anonymous is of value. Phil has put it nicely!
ReplyDelete