Back in the "old days", when you wanted to make your opinion known, you wrote a letter to the editor and you signed your name to it. The newspaper even called to verify that it was you that sent the letter. Maybe they still do that sometimes. If the letter was factually inaccurate, the paper wouldn't publish it. If it was libelous or just flat out mean, they might also decide not to publish it. But even if they did, there was the writer's name attached to it clearly to identify its source.
And yet, despite this effort to validate and verify, newspapers, until recently, uniformly allowed readers to post pretty much whatever they wanted with no identification whatsoever (see: Nobody Knows You're a Dog) Some moderation might occur, but let's face it, really not that much. And things got really, really nasty.
With the unfettered ability to say anything they wanted, people began to say whatever was on their mind, sometimes in the most unpleasant and inappropriate ways possible. Research shows that people are far more willing to be uncivil (see for example: Virtuous or Vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on online newspaper reader comment boards) if they are anonymous.
Things have gotten so nasty that recently newspapers and magazines have begun to respond, and are starting to require users to identify themselves using real names (e.g., requiring Facebook or LinkedIn profiles, for example). Popular Science just turned off online commenting altogether. Some politicians in NY even introduced legislation to ban online anonymous commenting.
Those who support online commenting offer some compelling arguments: it gives voice to people who might not be comfortable speaking using their real name, it enables people who fear retribution to speak their minds, it encourages a diversity of viewpoints including ones that might be unpopular (or politically incorrect). These are valid viewpoints.
[They may also make an argument regarding their First Amendment rights, but this argument is not valid. There is nothing in the first amendment that entitles you to post anonymously online. The First Amendment is about government restriction on speech. What newspapers or website operators do is entirely up to them.]
But there are more compelling arguments not to allow anonymous posting on news sites. We have all seen the effect on comment quality on the Town Crier site (which now requires user ID), and here on the Patch. Comments on the Patch here in Wayland all started out friendly and civil, but have degraded significantly as the site has caught on and more people are participating. My experience with anonymous online commenters is they tend to be less accurate, less civil and behave more like bullies. They discourage people who might like to participate civilly from getting involved. They make the environment scary and toxic. They also post off-topic items to change the subject. They lower the quality of the debate. We're a small town and we are all neighbors. We need to treat each other with respect. We can "disagree without being disagreeable." But I think we will do this best when we stand behind and put our names to our own thoughts, words and opinions.
I don't think the resulting lack of civility is worth the few benefits. What do you think?
