A digital disguise

A RECENT New York Times story looked at how some news organizations have been re-examining whether online commenters should be given anonymity – or a “digital disguise,” as reporter Richard Perez-Pena says.

Anyone who reads comments on news stories (and who doesn’t) knows that the anonymous ones tend to be useless and obnoxious – the kinds of things no one would have the balls to say to another person’s face.

Message boards, especially those not monitored well, can become, as columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. puts it, “havens for a level of crudity, bigotry, meanness and plain nastiness that shocks the tattered remnants of our propriety.”

To improve the situation, the Times reports, news organizations in both the old guard (Washington Post) and the new (Huffington Post) are looking at ways to downplay anonymous comments, and give prominence to those tied to names (real or not), or ones from recognized and trusted commenters.

Many sites require people to register before they post a comment. Some review comments before approving them, or they monitor and remove offensive ones after the fact. When readers submit letters to newspapers, they usually have to give a name and contact info for verification.

What WaPo/HuffPo are looking at sounds like a less over-lordy, more democratic way to deal with anonymous posts: readers rate the comments, and they’re ranked according to popularity. In an ideal world – mine at least – this means well-informed, insightful people are given top billing.

There are potential issues – as the Times notes, “when users help rank things online, sites may have to guard against a concerted campaign by a small group of people voting one way and skewing the results.”

Still, I’m all for taking steps to thwart anonymous commenters – and I don’t think, as some argue, this is anti-free speech.

It’s a beautiful thing when the public is engaged and shares perspectives in an intelligent and relatively civilized manner. (Though I do sometimes wonder if we need to be hearing from what seems like absolutely everybody…)

The problem with anonymity in comment sections: it’s a veil; it gives people cover to spit out venomous, ad hominem attacks against a reporter, or the subject of a story, or often against other commenters.

When anonymity abounds, the “conversation” we’ve been urged by news organizations to join can fast turn into an off-topic sideshow, a forum for nutjobs, half-wits, conspiracy theorists and raging malcontents to spout stupid shit.

I think it makes sense for HuffPo/WaPo to allow readers to vote for comments, presumably on the basis of their overall usefulness, and then to position them appropriately. Hopefully that means anonymous ones get pushed to the bottom.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com