Capitol Hill Blue Forums Capitol Hill Blue Opinions CHB Columnists Anonymous posters on the Internet can’t save America

Several did when last the issue surfaced. Jeffrey Haas among them

As did I.

I meant to write, use multiple monikers.

yup

i am still waiting for God to pen a relevant or irrelevant comment to any forum

i sometimes see people comment about nics/niks/nicks/handles and i always wonder wtf ... when people say something stupid, the spotlights of critical minds should be focused on what was said ... when people say something brilliant (more likely to be informative) we should do as well ... the messenger's name is irrelevant

There are several parts of this discussion that make no sense to me.

First is the implication that people who use their name are more responsible for what they say... less likely to throw bombs. There are lots of people including Doug who use their names and are avid bomb throwers. So Name using does not seem to preclude bomb throwing.

This particular forum is actively moderated with the specific objective to control bomb throwing. And for this reason, it seems to me that the "name" issue is just not relevant to our specific situation.

Further, it is not uncommon for publishers such as news organizations to use sources and publish letters where the identidy is with held. What these organizations DO INSIST upon is that they know who they are dealing with. And this is the case also on this forum. The publishers are free to require information about a person before they publish their comments. Certainly that includes my case, where I have be completely forthcoming with publishers and moderators about who I am. So once again I do not see the added need for publishing one's name in this context.

And, as others have pointed out, there are lots of rational reasons why a person might not want to be completely transparent about their identity. FOr example, even without throwing any bombs, a person might well express a point of view that is controversial with at least some people. If those people were to discover the comments that they dislikes, they could use those comments as a bludgeon to punish those who disagree with them. SO insisting on full name disclosure could easily restrain free speech for those who are in the public eye.

And finally, there is the known existence of all types of wackos. The publishing of ones name presents the real risk that some wacko will become obsessed by you and set out to make your life miserable.

So, IMO, as long as the publisher validates who people are, and as long as there is active moderation, I see no added value in using full names.... while I see considerable risks and restraint of free expression.\


FOr what it is worth
My name is Ardy Hagen
I live in San Jose if you want to come find me,
it is not so difficult.

So, I’m wondering:

1) By what means would a site use to verify that a person's name is real or not? In other words, how much invasive personal information probing would be conducted by any given website, which they deem necessary before verification is considered acceptable? And how much limitations of access to personal information would be controlled by a site member/poster?

Or...

2) If a site member who is required by a site owner to post his or her real name. Then will the site owner be provide the member with some form of publishable ID number or symbol that accompany's each post, which is confirmation by each site that a member's true identity has been verified?

Maybe there needs to be a Global Internet Person Identification Verification Clearing House? And maybe Doug could be the head honcho? Then maybe, just maybe, he'll finally feel that he can trust and respect someone's posted opinions.

The strangest part about all of this is that most all news sites "INVITE PUBLIC OPINION". And they do so for several reasons, all of which are for the site's benefit. Yet...the same organizations who "INVITE" people to post comments or opinion are whining about those who don't conform to their ideology or opinions.

And the real killer is that they provide membership registration forms that allow anonymity.

The sites are the one's holding all of the power and control over the content of their sites.

Those sites that editorialize about anonymity being so damaging...then END IT on their own sites! STOP WHINING!

There kinda is...it's called Disqus. Many forums are now using Disqus because Disqus verifies email addresses and combines your many email addresses under one-roof and even your avatars.

Welp...there ya have it.

But, Rick, considering the fact that website owners/administrators do, or should, have control over who has access and content. Wouldn't it make better sense for sites that have become offended by, or some claim damaged by anonymous posters...to simply eliminate that type of registration all together?

Even then, are we going to see the wizards behind the curtains of what appears to be "real names"? A lot of people have admitted to using pseudonyms, which for all practical purposes appear to be real names.

The most drastic alternative is simply don't allow comments from anybody who can't prove to a website who they are by furnishing very confidential information that would positively ensure that the poster is who he or she says they are?

What's it gonna take? How about a copy of one's driver's license, social security card, a debit or credit card, some statement from a utility company, etc, etc, etc.?

I guess websites could just contact the NSA for verification.

"Are you looking at me? You must be looking at me; there's nobody else here ..." except just about everybody.

I may be anonymous on this site. And I may throw firecrackers, if not bombs. But I'm really not a coward.

I contact my elected officials and rail on or compliment them, using my real name. I write letters to the editor of the KC Star using my full name. I walk picket lines in my real body. I address KC, MO school board meetings and piss lots of people off and watch my rear-view mirror on the way home.

I have a son living at home, 2 cats, 2 dogs, 1 cockatiel, 13 chickens, and a nightly visiting cat-food-eating raccoon. None of them deserve to suffer retribution because of my mouth or my pen. And I really don't deserve to suffer physical retribution either. But, you know what's out there. I see the number of "visitors" and "spiders" when I'm on this site. Do you vouch for them?

I love you both, Doug and Scoutgal. I have learned to respect you both over the last couple of years. And I understand the frustration of having couch potatoes tell everybody else what ought to be while never stirring a finger. I'm not them.

My first name is Hettie and I'm female. If I gave you the rest of my name, you could Google it and find out that I once had to testify in Federal court about which finger I used when I pointed to my butt in a teachers' meeting. Do I want that? No. Do you need to know that? I don't think so.

So, what do you want to do? What policy changes are you considering?

OH ... and my "Preview Post" isn't working ... So, ball in your court ...

FWIW
If I take your editorials seriously.... no one can save this country... including you Doug. And that claim (right or wrong) has nothing to do with people posting with handles on the internet. Among other things it has to do with politicians who routinely lie, politicians who depend upon rich donors who stay in the shadows and pull the strings using all sorts of sophisticated strategies to hide their influence and their identity.