Our Anonymous Community
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Idaho Falls residents are starting to talk more about anonymity and privacy vs. responsibility and accountability. This is an overdue discussion.
Our local Post Register newspaper requires letters-to-the-editor submissions to include the author’s real name and contact information. If the author is unverifiable, their opinion is sent to the ’round file’. They say they are upholding responsibility and accountability. Some say this is a sound policy, that if you want to say something in public you should stand proud and not try to hide.
On the other hand, many local people say they are reluctant to speak out on many issues because they are in the minority. The issues can range from politics to religion to even supporting a local millionaire. Once identified, many locals get ridiculed beyond mature debate simply for expressing their opinions. The net result of this is our citizens retreating from public discussions. Once a person withdraws from public discussions, they’ll also likely withdraw from other civic activities like voting.
IdahoFallz.com was designed with the concept that who you are is much less important than what you have to say. The quality of your content trumps the quality of your social standing. Some people choose to use their real name and that is great. Some choose to actively participate in an anonymous fashion, and that is great also.
I could not believe when one of our members related to me how they got harassed last year after expressing their opinions on the Brad Stowell/Boy Scout/Frank Vandersloot/Post Register lollapalooza. A key figure in that episode allegedly started investigating people who were the most vocal critics.
In fact many people have expressed appreciation for IdahoFallz.com enabling anonymous registrations. Some people fear retribution from an alleged ‘good ol’ boy network’ or from when they try to get a job in town. Nobody should have to fear retribution for their ideas.
The IdahoFallz.com philosophy towards anonymity also is based in respect: treat people like adults and they will generally act like adults. Imagine such a concept! Of course we get the occasional booger, just like anywhere in any city, and those are dealt with as they rise. We have the ability to pinpoint every user and pursue them in correlation to their offense, even to the point of getting their entire Internet access canceled. However, the respect we give to our visitors has been repaid tenfold in the adult manner they have conducted themselves.
I read the Post Register is dedicating an August 14th Community Advisory Board meeting to discussing their anonymous letter policy (probably other things also). I can’t help but wonder if IdahoFallz.com’s thriving anonymous community made them realize it can be done?
The Post Register is a profound community institution that affects us all. I hope everyone either responds here with their opinion (they will read it) or contacts one of the advisory board members.
What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Is censorship a good idea even if it is an anonymous source? It seems to me that if someone is presenting a valid idea that could better our community, and use your newspaper to express it, then we would want to know what the idea is regardless of the source. Furthermore, knowing the source can bias our interpretation before we even hear the idea. You stated ethical reasons for censoring anonymous authors/sources. Where is our ethical obligation if information is leaked or reported from an anonymous source when human rights are in question? There may be oppressive systems in operation within our community, if there are I would like to know. Also, it may be a good idea for the person reporting within to have the security to speak freely yet still be heard.
existenz
Vote:
0 0 Ethics aside, the Post Register is a published article, so allowing anonymous submissions could open them up to Libel cases, etc.
I actually very much disagree with Joe’s case for anonymity. As much as someone’s person may affect their statement, that’s reality. Besides, allowing for such activity removes personal responsibility from what someone has to say - as Joe puts it “owning your comments”. Making someone state their name makes them accountable and responsible for their point of view and comments. I believe that for the free flow of ideas to be effective, we need actual people, faces, names, and context to be made known.
Nothing is more infuriating this website than some random “guest” popping by, spouting off an opinion, then disappearing into cyberspace. What is the point? There is no value in that.
That’s just my view, though.
Vote:
0 0 Just because someone doesn’t give their name to back their statement, doesn’t mean they can’t make a valid point.
Vote:
0 0 Roger: then I misunderstood the intent of that message a few days ago. Not the first or last time I misunderstand something. I must say
I am interested to then see what parts of the policy will be discussed since you are trying to ‘enforce some level of civility’. I’d like to see the criteria for ‘requiring writers to engage in civil debate’. Imagine trying to get people to speak their conversations with the same criteria.
Jeremy: I don’t see how ‘allowing anonymous submissions could open them up to Libel cases’; how does a=c? Someone writing an anonymous letter saying they like our fireworks is not a libelous precurser.
I think the PR’s other policy on excessive lawsuit risk is what prevents libel cases, though the PR does not publish their criteria. I wish they would, it would educate writers what could really be libelous, and fewer of those letters would be submitted. As of now nobody is sure of that criteria and some people may not realize their words pose an excessive lawsuit risk.
As for ‘I believe that for the free flow of ideas to be effective, we need actual people, faces, names, and context to be made known.’ I guess our 788 comments in response to 308 articles since October are not a free flow of ideas? I never needed to know a person’s identity to understand their idea.
Roger alluded to a big difference between the published PR and any website: trolls and flamers. These are people who try to make trouble online, say things they know will incite tempers, etc.
It’s a sad fact of the Internet these people exist, and the only way to prevent that is to ignore them. It’s a reflection of life. Ignore the jerks and take care of your own business. Interact with the people that interest you.
So when you say ‘Nothing is more infuriating this website than some random “guest†popping by, spouting off an opinion, then disappearing into cyberspace. What is the point? There is no value in that.’ If you don’t see value in someone’s statement, skip it and respond only to those you do find value in.
When someone is swearing in Wal-Mart or screaming out their window as they speed by, do you chase after them to clarify their thoughts and get their name?
No, you disregard them because you recognize they do not offer quality. You can do the same here. An ignored idiot moves on.
Vote:
0 0 I mean really Jeremy, over in the ‘Societal Implications of the morning after pill’ discussion, comment #17 from twocents was obviously anonymous, but they probably had the best information on the subject matter. And you thanked that person by their anonymous name and admitted they had good information.
Anonymity does not equate to invalid opinions. Anonymity does not equate to excessive lawsuit risk.
Anonymity simply equates to privacy. In our lifetimes our privacy has been boiled down to nothing, and it will be interesting to see how our culture takes back our privacy through anonymity practices.
Vote:
0 0 Actually, there is a direct correlation between anonymity and the likelihood of lawsuit, proven over many years. People promised anonymity are far more likely to say things that either are untrue or can’t be proven, and are generally less reliable. That doesn’t mean everything they say is invalid — it’s gray, not black or white, a matter of scale.
To clarify, I did not say that I intend to enforce a “certain level of civility.” I posed the question — is it our job to strike a balance between enforcing civility and allowing unfettered debate? My personal answer is, no. But others disagree, arguing that a community newspaper should enforce some sort of code.
Vote:
0 0 I have not heard of a direct correlation between anonymity and lawsuit likelihood. Probably something I should look into, shouldn’t I? Any cases you can point me to?
Now you have seen our policy that people posting their comments own their comments, and we in case of libelous statements we will willingly turn over IP addresses that can identify the writer to legal subpeona or criminal investigation. I know you’re not a lawyer, but I get the feeling you don’t think that’s sufficient to protect a publisher, right? Or could it be enough for an interactive medium while not enough for a print publication where editors decide what gets printed?
Just wondering your opinion on that. Perhaps our policies have put a timer on this site’s existence? If so revel in it! Or perhaps the differences betwen print and interactive media need to be challenged and clarified.
I hope I never put words in anyone’s mouth, and if anyone feel’s I do please speak up. I was quoting the PR Tuesday, August 8, 2006, page D6, the three paragraphs next to your photograph and signed underneath by yourself that read:
“The board will be considering the Post Register’s letters-to-the-editor policy. Should it be no holds barred, or should we enforce some level of civility to the debate?”
I reread my comment #5 and see I did write “since you are trying to ‘enforce some level of civility’.” and oops that was not what was printed, you were posing the question rather than saying you were going to do it. My bad, my apologies.
I can certainly understand trying to avoid using anonmyous sources for news. Anonymous opinions are the matter members of our community disagree on.
I was glad to see this issue being discussed by the advisory board, but was disappointed to read you cut off possibly the most fundamental aspect of it: “The issue of verifying the identity of letter writers for the Post Register is not open to debate. We will insist on knowing who is writing for us, without exception.”
You will not even allow the discussion?
Vote:
0 0 Let me make a psychological admission here.
I protect my anonymity because I prize my privacy. My identity has been sold to the highest bidder and my privacy is invaded daily by companies who see me as a dollar sign rather than a human.
I served seven years in our Idaho National Guard with an honorable discharge, I’m not eligible for veteran’s benefits due to less than 20 years and no war, yet I get a letter saying my ‘veteran’s information’ was possibly stolen on that VA laptop in the news lately.
Wow, so I did the work, am not recognized as a veteran, and never complained because I understand those are the policies. Yet my privacy is at risk since it was organized as veteran information and handled incompetently by other people.
Beyond this case, think of all the stolen identity problems we have in America, and how many customer lists we are being sold around on.
I no longer trust companies with my information. They do not care for my privacy like I care for my privacy. I can no longer trust their policies and safegaurds. The only way I can ensure privacy is to opt-out completely and remain anonymous.
Does this mean I must also withdraw from trying to improve my community?
Vote:
0 0 “We have the ability to pinpoint every user and pursue them in correlation to their offense, even to the point of getting their entire Internet access canceled.”
I do not feel so anonymous, anymore.
Yikes.
Vote:
0 0 Good, there’s your accountability.
We’ve always had this ability, and we’ve pledged to only use it in the most extreme cases.
Nobody on this site can report they’re anonymity has been compromised.
As an example, I see the email addresses of some registrants and can obviously tell what company or government entity they work for, and usually their name by their email address.
I have yet to compromise anyone’s anonymity with that information, because I could care less. I have a background of handling secret and confidential information, and trust myself with the information.
I think your information is more secure here than at your phone company.
Vote:
0 0 Joe:
As you note, I’m not an attorney. However, here’s what I understand. Libel occurs only with the publication of false and malicious material that defames a living person. The key word there is “publication.” Uttering such material in the presence of a small number of people constitutes slander. It’s the publication of the material that makes it libel.
The single most common trigger of libel lawsuits is letters to the editor. Even though the newspaper isn’t the source of the material, the fact that the newspaper prints it makes it potentially liable. Hence, our very strict policy. It’s not negotiable, and I know of no newspaper that has a contrary policy.
The courts, so far, have recognized a difference between the printed word and material posted on a web site. However, in my view your disclaimer does not provide the protection you seek. As case law evolves, it will become more clear whether a web site is legally responsible for content posted by others. So far, web sites have not been found liable, but I think that’s a temporary phenomenon.
Finally, I’d just suggest that the idea of anonymity today is an illusion. As “Anonymous” notes, anyone — including you, Joe — can learn the identity of people on the Internet if they are skilled and patient enough. I share your concerns about privacy, but the right to privacy does not exist in a vacuum — it must be balanced with other legitimate concerns.
RP
Vote:
0 0 Good points. Thanks for the perspective, Roger, I do appreciate it and your candor. I’m glad we agree on the differences between the media also.
I would appreciate it greatly if you could share the PR’s criteria for ‘excessive lawsuit risk’ either here, published on the L2E page, or privately in email. I think that criteria could be very enlightening to laypeople like myself. By criteria of course I mean key words or statements that make something libelous (the fine line).
Libelous statements could also be clarified by any local attorneys? Comments?
Vote:
0 0 Libel is whatever a jury says it is, so it’s a moving target. There’s no litmus test that serves to identify it. There are, however, three key words: false, malicious, defamatory. So, stating an opinion is typically protected speech. Asserting a claim of fact, however — particularly about another person — enters deeper waters. Proving malice (a threshold set by the U.S. Supreme Court), of course, is difficult, which is why most lawsuits against the media are unsuccessful. The question not yet answered in the courts regarding the Internet is whether a web site is wholly responsible for the site’s content.
I’m now dangerously close to practicing (badly) law without a license. The smartest person in eastern Idaho on media law is the Post Register’s attorney, Steve Wright.
For the record, I think web sites such as this one play a role that a local newspaper cannot. So, I don’t advocate the same policies for you that I insist on for the PR — different media, different objectives, different issues.
Now, some day we should discuss net neutrality. I think you’re missing a key aspect — the role of government in a capitalistic economy.
RP
Vote:
0 0 Maybe I’m just stupid but I am wondering the difference between being anonymous on t.v. and being anonymous in print? Aren’t they pretty much the same thing?
Vote:
0 0 A few years ago, I worked for a newspaper that allowed anonymous comments, letters to the editor, to be published. In the four and a half years I worked for that paper, that “outlet” was one of the worst headaches we at the paper had. Sure, people would call in with anonymous comments saying something akin to the Fourth of July fireworks needing improvement and such, but most of it — and it was published — was nothing but vile attacks on civic leaders, private citizens and institutions. Rarely were any thought-provoking arguments given. In my mind, anyone who is going to comment publicly — in the paper, on a web site, et cetera — ought to do it in person, not anonymously. I say this from the point of view of a person who has written and had published some things that really attracted ridicule and scorn, most of it deserved. I used my real name, as I’ve used on this post. And I survived. Having something printed and having other people really upset about it is a price to pay when you’re a writer, in no matter what forum you write in. Anonymity, in 99 percent of the ways it appears in our society today, is a crutch.
Vote:
0 0 RP, your comment “Now, some day we should discuss net neutrality. I think you’re missing a key aspect — the role of government in a capitalistic economy.”
got me all excited, I really hope to see your camp publish an article on net neutrality. It’s such an important looming issue and amazingly so few people have any clue about, and don’t realize what’s at stake.
The article would have to boil it down enough to make sense to a low common denominator. Not saying people are dumb, but analogies and examples will really communicate the issue (like imagine Google taking a minute to load instead of 4 seconds because they refuse to pay extra to your ISP).
And you’d have to include Senator Ted Stevens’ infamous ‘the Internet is a bunch of tubes’ speech that has been so ridiculed.
Vote:
0 0 Joe:
I agree, a good, comprehensive look at net neutrality with a local focus is long overdue.
I fear, however, that I’ve misled you a little. I’m staunchly opposed to net neutrality as currently conceived. Why do we want to give the government that kind of power? While Sen. Stevens clearly has no clue about the Internet and related issues,I believe he’s right in characterizing the Internet as simply a new communication technology that doesn’t deserve special government regulation.
I’m probably in the minority here, both within my own building and in my industry. This reflects my “small ‘l’” libertarian view of the world that distrusts the government. Once you allow government regulation, Katy bar the door. It’ll be a mess.
We need only enough regulation to ensure an even playing field, not one that favors small or large players. The marketplace will sort it out from there. That’s messy, too, but the outcome is inevitably more palatable than something the government manipulates.
RP
Vote:
0 0 It’s like tubes, Roger! TUBES!
Anyway, I think I’m beginning to agree with your point of view on the issue. I mean, if Google does sell out and begin giving more hits to certain sites, consumers will take notice, some nerd will design a new web crawler that doesn’t operate that way, and consumers will use the new, nerdier Google.
The internet is so organic and user-based (not like television, which tends to operate on entertainment fascism from time to time), that it’s not really necessary to have government involvement.
Just look at music piracy. The government stuck its ugly head there and it’s more popular now than ever.
Vote:
0 0 Man, you are one smart dude! About that gay marriage thing…
Vote:
0 0 Perhaps information is safer here than with the phone company.
From the phone company, someone could glean personal information including even your ss and credit card numbers. However, this involves grabbing information from amongst millions, unless you are personally targeted. But if this is the case, it is probably a matter of your finances and how much there is to gain.
Here however we are refering to a very small community with a small degree of separation. In a city such as New York anonymity is a daily way of life, it is difficult even to become known. Here it takes very little to stand out or be persecuted. In a large community what one might say about a neighbor or the Mayor of some other individual is much more likely to slip through the cracks or be ignored. Here “witch hunts” are not unheard of. I would be curious if there are any cases (on the record, anyhow) involving this kind of retribution? Anyone?
Therefore an anoymous forum is the only real way to get the real oppinions of the community. Not allowing individuals to express themselves as unknowns, though not exactly censorship, breeds it on a personal level. Though it is not an infringement on free speech per se, it prevents someone with something to say from saying it to whom they want. What doesn’t get sent to the PR or gets rejected due to policy is the honest blood and guts oppinions of our people.
I believe that this site serves the purpose of and may in fact eliminate the need for a publication such as City Weekly in SLC. That is a big compliment by the way. That purpose is, in part, to provide a venue for subjects and oppinions that would never see the light of day in the Tribune. And anonymously, in the letters.
Some threats however include that if you yourself even are checking IP’s (not an accusation) even out of curiosity that violates the anonymity. If someone else cares enough they can certainly do the same. Also, as stated a given entity could subpoena the information from you and at that point unless you are a martyr, it is out of your hands. Particularly, of course, in light of the patriot act.
The difference between the web and subscribed information such as a Magazine or paper is immense. Hard copy sources of information are finite in number, easier to hold accountable, and individal publications go to many individuals. The web is opposite. There are thousands of new sources daily, completely impossible to monitor or prosecute in full, and most importantly the individual is going to the information. It is the individual’s responsibility to choose information that is applicable, cross check information, determine worthiness, etc. I think someone referred to it as organic, I would go further to darwinistic.
The printed word is certainly a disappearing medium, and will continue to be assuming current technological progress. Programs such as the $100 laptop are assuring that. The current publishers, most of which are at least online as well already,will continue their migration and will bring their integrity with them, raising the bar.
Trolls and flamers are around us every day. Driving agressively, picking on business’ employees, generally trying to make their bad day yours. Unfortunate, but real. Once again, stuff that gets fluffed out of the published world.
I do not blame the PR for their policy. The law is the law and everyone has to protect themselves in this sue happy time. This site however should continue to allow free discourse to it’s contributors, regardless of name or not.
At the most, perhaps a disclaimer for a singular forum for those wishing to be anonymous would be in order, if there is that much trouble with it.
To find out what is going on in the world, read the paper. Then go to the internet and find out the rest of the truth, the real story instead of the AP’s. To find the flow of ideas in the city, consult the letters to the editor, PR. To find the pulse of the town and see the reality come here. Anytime, on any subject present, whether you wish to be known or not, one can comment here to anyone who wants to read. What could provide a better medium for the free flow of ideas?
You mentioned music piracy and the that bring up one more point to me. The companies simply moved their bases of operations to countries where they cannot be prosecuted (simplistic version) and used other loopholes. A hard publisher does not have that kind of flexibility. They cannot move the company and the laws have been constricting for too long now for flexibility.
I applaud your forum here I also applaud the PR. Their new look is one of the small things that are happening here that make this great town less podunk.
Vote:
0 0 Just a thought.
We aren’t really anonymous on this site as long as anyone can see our IP addresses. I totally understand and support the reasons that Joe needs to be able to see them. But I don’t like that everyone else and their dog can see them.
Vote:
0 0 An IP address is like a fingerprint. Yes, anyone can check an IP address and see who your ISP is, but your ISP’s technical department holds the customer information that matches that IP address.
There also has to be a time match, since most people’s ISP’s do dynamic addressing, meaning your IP changes every few hours or days.
Unless you don’t trust your ISP’s technical department also. I suppose so, but if your information is leaked from your ISP without a proper legal investigation … oh heck I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I remember good days when people just talked instead of focusing on who’s talking or if we can find out who’s talking.
Vote:
0 0 But that IS the topic of this thread, right? The good old days before when? When an ever increasingly connected world seemed like a wild pipe dream? Don’t get me wrong, I happen to agree but U think the underlying issue tracks back through picking up the phone on a group line, wiretaps, listening through the walls and peeking through peepholes.
But how about a new tack, then? I wonder is it true that “People with nothing to fear have nothing to hide” ?
What happened to RP of the PR? I think he has brought some interesting and intelligent thinking to this discussion.
Vote:
0 0 “People with nothing to fear have nothing to hide†is the motto of fascism. There is a certain value of anonymity, but in this age of taxes and the internet, it’s safe to say that privacy is dead. Blog coming soon on the topic.
Vote:
0 0 An update on the potential legal liability of message board and blog proprietors. I ran across an article today in a media industry publication that discusses the topic and refers to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This law holds that, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
While, on the surface, this appears to protect sites such as this, its intent was to protect ISPs. There are conflicting legal theories as to whether this will stand up if and when a libel suit against a blog or message board gets to the federal appellate level. My guess is that web sites will eventually be held to similar standards as all other publishers once the inevitable lawsuits have been fully adjudicated.
RP
Vote:
0 0 A major part of the whole issue comes down to the fact that hard published information is sent out into every subscriber home or bookstore, but an individusl must access the information themselves, online.
A front page story slamming Wal Mart, for instance, would in my oppinion be more libelous (particularly if inaccurate) than say Walmartsucks.com . One expects journalistic integrity from publishers, but any Joe (little joke) can say whatever they want on the web.
The issue is completely unenforcable, and if there are attempts made it will be unfortunate because only high visibility sites will suffer.
This open forum is no different to me than sitting in the coffee shop talking, exept I am comfy at home. It is in writing, one notable difference. But to hold you responsible because ted
hates ed and says so would be ludicrous.
Vote:
0 0 Roger, thanks for the information. I had heard something akin to that before, and from the opinions (non-legal) of some big tech gurus I proceeded in creating this website.
I couldn’t predict legal challenges in any way. I think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so the protection shouldn’t stop at the ISP, it should cascade down to the website publisher also. We’ll have to watch as cases arise in this area.
Archy, that’s a really good point. It’s one of the reasons controversial art and pornographic movies are protected, because they are not out in public in your face (and your kids’ faces). You must make the adult and conscious decision to proceed into that area, informed of what’s back there, and you alone are responsible if you are offended. Even the comments are not published on the main page here, you must do another click to read the opinions.
Again, it just defines the differences between the old and the new media. One is not necessarily better than the other, just different, and it’s good we can recognize the differences.
Vote:
0 0 One of the hats I wear requires me to research information for people with questions on a particular topic.
Although there are thousands of sites on the subject, some of which are my regular bookmarked sources, if I need to go beond my printed library to the web, I am required to only refer information from .edu sources. These pages are affiliated with universities and research centers, etc. They are full of the most accurate, up to date information. They are held to standards. Good data.
Since the web is chock full of every tom dick and harry’s oppinions, it is, once again, up to the browser to add the necessary grain of salt in reading and use reliable sources.
Search up fly fishing and take your pick from how to dress your fly to where the local gay bars are.
Vote:
0 0 Didn’t mean to kill the topic, there. The point is just that there is accountability in information that has to be depended on, and It’s OK for the oppinions ind ideas to fly free, otherwise.
Vote:
0 0 OK I’m talking to myself again but I think something came up that pertains. In the pre-phoning article a commentor was apparently hesitant to name restauraunts. Is this to protect themselves? to protect the site? My hope for anonymity is that people can feel more free to express. Am I missing something that is perhaps a posting rule?
Vote:
0 0 No, I think they are just used to the hyper-strict rules enforced everywhere else and didn’t want to overstep bounds. No harm in that.
However, this is more like a a group of people standing around in the mall. You can say what you want, opinions are still protected by the constitution.
I think it would have been fine for them to name the restaurant they got the bad service at, that’s an opinion based on someone’s experience.
It’s not like they’re saying that businesss is doing anything illegal, they’re just commenting on the service.
If you had good or bad service somewhere local, don’t be afraid to say so! I’d appreciate the full story, including why the service was bad and what good parts there were. Just saying a place has bad service is protected, but I think it’s lame. Fill in the details and inform us all better.
Vote:
0 0 So I guess the above comments are directed at me. I named the restaurant as well as the service in a later post. On one hand, I give the benefit of the doubt. I’m not sure what I expect with a couple of teenage girls working the front door of the Roadhouse on a Friday night. (That sounds worse than it really is.) On the other hand, I’ve always believed “You can’t solve a problem you don’t know exists.” Maybe someone associated with the restaurant will read up and work on it. (See the pre-phoning post for the restaurant.)
Vote:
0 0 I heard on this week’s Cranky Geeks podcast that the 9th circuit court of appeals upheld libel protection for bloggers.
Bloggers’ activities (like linking to stories and accepting comments) are protected by the 1st amendment. It was noted that blogs are more like casual discussions than factual publications, and thus are not held to the same level of responsibility like news outlets or journalists. The story was essentially that people have a right to informally discuss things.
I tried looking up the case, and all I found was http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59424,00.html which is a story from 2003, which is strange it was being discussed as a recent decision on Cranky Geeks. Either they didn’t notice the story date or I have the wrong case.
Vote:
0 0 Someone tried degrading the validity of another’s comments the other day because that person had chosen to remain anonymous on IFz.
I felt compelled to comment on this old thread and highlight why anonymity is not to be disdained here.
I also realized something interesting. When listening to local talk shows, specifically the Neal Larson show, you are free to give your real name or a fake name. I don’t think Neal cares who you are, he cares more about the quality of what you have to say.
Why should it be any different here?
Vote:
0 0 …libel vs. slander…
libel is written defamation and easier to prosecute
slander is verbal and more difficult to prove…
and it all gets cloudy but a responsible party such as printed media must adhere to some standards don’t you think?
Shouldn’t there be accountability for ones behavior in speech as well as action?
And if a person has something to say that is truthful and not defamatory, (that is attacking someone’s good name), then why not represent oneself and uphold personal integrity… if not, if it is anonymous then there is suspicion from listeners for doubt and fraud… it is human nature I suppose.
Also, if a person feels they will be attacked for being in the minority when they speak up then that is nearly coward, I know that is a strong comment but how many people have spoken up with an unpopular or minority statement and gone down in history as a hero…or trend setter or discoverer etc?
At least they stood up not worrying about whether it was popular or accepted but that it was their own conviction…and their names were attached with their bold unpopular statements. I suppose we live in a different era where it is easier to be cowardly or popular than brave…
these are just my own thoughts, I have discussed this topic often with co-workers due to the massive information age we live in… it is too easy to be anonymous and say ‘whatever’ when there is no accountability…
Vote:
0 0 I can’t speak to the comment to which you are referring, as I don’t think I saw it.
I believe it is one thing for a person to use a Username, which isn’t their own name, but represents to others it is still the same person speaking each time. But, I believe it is something else to have endless guests or visitors using different numbers, as the same person.
I know I’m not alone being frustrated with endless different “Visitors and Guests” and endless numbers. Some of us feel that one person can easily visit as various visitors and guests just changing the number with each chat box entry.
The concern is a person could mislead others, based on the ability to enter multiple comments in the chat box, appearing to be many different people. All one needs to do is change a number along with the Guest or Visitor and to someone who doesn’t think about deceiving others, or is viewing the site for the first time, it can appear many people share a view, which may not be accurate.
The danger, from my perspective is, a person, employer, business or etc. may be getting slammed when there is no proof of what the person is writing is fact. Secondly, there is no guarantee that one person doesn’t have an issue and isn’t writing supporting comments as a different User or Visitor.
Yes, a person is entitled to his/her opinion. However, is he/she entitled to make it appear that 10-15 or more people may share the identical view, when in reality this may be one person just changing the guest or visitor number with each comment written in the chatbox?
One could easily have a chat back and forth in the chat box using different Visitor or Guest Numbers, trashing someone, some business, former employer etc. who has either used their real name or a consistent User name at
Idaho Falls.Com.
A year ago I wouldn’t have even thought this possible, let alone known how it could be done. Let’s just say I’m wiser now.
It’s been my observation that many of the most ugly remarks made about others, be it employers, the Mayor, the City or anythng or anyone else, are made with a “Guest” or “Visitor” name. Where is the accountability if real damage is done?
I think there is a lot of value in being able to have a Username. As I’ve written many times before, many of us have signed agreements at work or elsewhere stating we would never use our real names on any website or Internet discussions. For those of us, we wouldn’t be able to write anything without a Username. I’m grateful that both Idaho Fallz.Com and the Post Register allow us to use a Usermame instead of our real names.
I think all opinions are valid. Unfortunately, some people feel less inhibited or responsible and may say things they wouldn’t otherwise, if they knew they had to be accountable for their remarks. I can see how a disgruntled, former employee, or ex-spouse etc. could write many things here about a person which may or may not be factual.
For example, perhaps due to legal reasons, in a divorce with custody pending, or in business with other employment confidentiality issues, the person who has used their real name or a consistent Username, can’t necessarily defend or even respond to all the comments “guests or visitors” have made. And if a “guest or visitor” makes several comments in the chat box appearing to be more than one person, the problem is only escalated.
I don’t believe you started the anonymous/guest option to attempt to make derogatory or punitive statements about others or businessess. Rather, I think you did it because you wanted anyone to feel they could leave a remark. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same standards of what they would or would not write here, as you.
In the last few months I looked at possibly registering at Idaho Falls Magazine since I wanted to write some comments there, but was greatly concerned with something I read in their registration policy. Ironically, it addresses the concern I’ve written about above (a person using multiple “guests or visitor numbers”)
From: http://www.idahofallsmagazine.com/fusetalk/forum/reg.cfm - - - where one agrees to the terms to register to use their site, the first term states,
” 1) When you register, you must choose a unique user name or “handle” and you must provide a unique, valid e-mail address. Duplicate user names and e-mail addresses are not allowed, so if the name or address you enter is already in use, you will be prompted to choose another one. Note that we may choose to use the members real name rather than user names or “handles” to identify then as the posters of messages within the forum.”
I can’t register to post comments at Idaho Falls Magazine, because of the term stated above, “NOTE THAT WE MAY CHOOSE TO USE THE MEMBERS REAL NAME RATHER THAN THEIR USER NAMES OR “HANDLES” TO IDENTIFY THEN AS THE POSTERS OF MESSAGES WITHIN THE FORUM.”
I cannot risk having my real name used, given documents I’ve signed stating I wouldn’t use my real name. Given this clause, I’ve not yet found the guidelines saying when my real name might be used. That lack of information concerns me, and while it is a I.F.Magazine issue, I wanted to show policies of some of the other local interactive websites compared to Idaho Fallz.Com.
Just to be clear, I did a cut and paste from Idaho Falls Magazine’s URL. The word “Then” may be a typo for “Them” - I don’t know. I’m simply clarifying that I did not make that typo. This is the exact statement of the Registration Agreement terms at Idaho Falls Magazine.
Given I.F. Magazine’s policies, I can’t risk participating in their discussions, although I would like to. How do I know when someone will post my real name (or the name of my business)? A decision to post my real name, maybe because someone doesn’t like my view of an article or philosophy of the magazine etc., is too high of a risk for me to take.
Ultimately, I wonder how those at Idaho Falls Magazine think professionals, business owners and others who answer to licensing boards and authorities higher than Idaho Falls Magazine, or Harris Publishing, would want to participate? But, that is their problem and not the focus of Idaho Fallz.Com. However, I wanted to provide this example, as it is a real threat for some to be “exposed” if the decision makers at Harris Publishing or Idaho Falls Magazine decide to publish real names instead of Usernames.
The odd thing is this, I’ll predict someone from Idaho Falls Magazine will respond here, which would be appropriate. It will just be interesting, based on previous patterns of users, who have identified themselves as employees of I.F. Magazine or Harris Publishing, of how one or many respond from Harris Publishing/I.F. Magazine.
And just to be clear, I was trained as part of my professional training to look for patterns. I have NO KNOWLEDGE of how many times employees from Harris Publishing/I.F. Magazine log on here, add comments or write in the chat box as multiple “guests or visitors.”
Consequently, I appreciate that nowhere does Idaho Fallz. Com state that my real name might be used in comments, instead of my Username when I don’t know why. I don’t believe it is fair to identify a person at any time, with no further clarification.
It’s a far more complex issue than I originally thought: multiple guest or visitor numbers, coming from one person vs. the ability to make statements honestly without fear of losing employment, safety etc. and protecting the identity of those who can’t use their names. It use to seem a lot more simple than it appears to me today.
Vote:
0 0 Good points by both g1948 and Ok4Now.
One point I don’t think is often considered is that people discussing things here often tell their family, friends, and co-workers about IFz along with their username.
I know the things I say are attributed to me by my family, my friends, and my boss. I imagine the people with usernames are more mindful of what they say than you might think.
I decided early to allow the anonymous ‘guests’ for two reasons: technology newness and privacy.
For one thing, many people in Idaho Falls are just ramping up to interacting in this type of online forum. Registering is pretty simple, but some people are uncomfortable with trying that and would still like to say some things.
I have read many nice and smart things written by guests, although I think the majority of our most negative comments have come from that sector. Par for course, I believe.
The other reason is that privacy. I wouldn’t want anyone’s job to be endangered by things they say here. While they may not post trade secrets, employers are increasingly hyper-sensitive and issue blanket restrictions that reach to far.
For example, a few of the employees at IF Magazine were posting here, adding quite a bit of flavor to the discussions here (and not just about the magazine).
Their editor Steve Smede posted here that he had asked his employees to stop posting here because some discussions were about their magazine, and I haven’t seen one of them participate in any discussion since.
Maybe they are just focusing on their new forums at their site, and I can understand that. Or maybe some of those people are still here, but posting under new usernames or even as guests?
I think the ‘guest’ function, while it can be stretched, is essential to enabling local freedom of speech.
Vote:
0 0 Thanks for bringing up that clause in the IF Mag site’s Registration Agreement, Ok4now. This is the first I’ve heard about it. I will pass on what you’ve highlighted to our IT department. The language in it seems odd, as if it’s saying your real name could be used at any time for any reason in place of your chosen username. My first hunch is that the statement in question (type-o and all) just came with the software, but I could be wrong. The person to talk to would be our IT Director, Chuck Harris. You can reach him through our corporate site at http://www.harrispublishing.com. I went ahead and forwarded the relevant portion of your message to his attention.
I’m fascinated by the different perspectives on this forum regarding anonymity and the growing blogosphere. What a great topic! Coincidentally, this is the exact topic of my next column for Idaho Falls Magazine. I just wish this discussion would have surfaced a couple of weeks ago. (Unlike the daily paper, our editorial deadlines in Magazine Land are far in advance of our print and mail dates.)
My favorite comment thus far is that “many of the most ugly remarks made about others, be it employers, the Mayor, the City or anything or anyone else, are made with a ‘Guest’ or ‘Visitor’ name. Where is the accountability if real damage is done?†I also appreciate the remark about the nuance between individuals posting under consistent pseudonyms and those posting under a myriad of guest numbers. That was a good point. On that note, I’d really love to see some more opinions on the precarious balance between anonymity and accountability. (That is really the central question of my column.) As stated earlier in this thread, the issue of online anonymity is a lot more complicated than it first appears.
Side note: The individual posting as “Joe Vandal” notes that “employers are increasingly hyper-sensitive and issue blanket restrictions that reach [too] far‖the case in point being Idaho Falls magazine. Indeed, I asked some people who work here to refrain from posting at this forum on company time or posting as official representatives of Idaho Falls magazine or Harris Publishing. That’s not a blanket restriction that reaches too far, in my opinion, but I can understand why it may have been perceived that way. I don’t think I specified “on company time†when I originally posted here before, but I should have. Just thought I’d clarify.
As I noted before, I can be reached easily at steve@harrispublishing.com or steve@idahofallsmagazine.com; phone: 542-2254; snail mail: 360 B Street, Idaho Falls, ID 83402.
Vote:
0 0 Steve,
Thank you for checking into that clause. I’d like the freedom to write about some of the changes I see as positive, for I.F. Magazine, and some things that perhaps could be revisited. However, as I’ve already stated, I’m contractually obligated not to use my name in any Internet discussions.
I’ll watch I.F. Magazine’s website to see if changes are made to that clause. I hope it can be done so more feedback or discussions about articles can occur. I also look forward to your column on this as I think it is a very complex issue.
I certainly am much more aware of some of the nuances now than a year ago.
Vote:
0 0 Thanks for the clarifications, Steve. Look forward to reading that article. If you’re running those forums, that might be a topic that resurfaces.
Vote:
0 0 Joe,
So if you sale your site will you keep all users here anomynous and will who every buys it follow the same rules you have regarding privacy?
Vote:
0 0 I’m thinking about the power someone might have to buy this site and use those e-mails you spoke of!!!
Vote:
0 0
Vote:
Roger Plothow here, humble editor and publisher of the Post Register.
The issue of verifying the identity of letter writers for the Post Register is not open to debate. We will insist on knowing who is writing for us, without exception. Our role is different than that of a local web site — we must have a higher threshold for legal and ethical reasons.
This policy is also true for our news stories — with very rare exception, we do not use anonymous sources. I won’t debate the efficacy of either policy — each has its place.
RP