I have deleted a lot of comments today that may have got on if only they had looked like they were from remotely identifiable people.
I believe in transparency.
If you use fake names and emails addresses you're wasting your time commenting here.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What do you mean by ‘remotely identifiable people’?
Are people not allowed to air their views on your comment, which in turn are views on certain situations?
Sometimes people do see things from different points of views. They don’t always match ones own.
Different views are allowed – of course
But if I think there is little or no prospect of identifying the commentator then I reserve – and use – the right to delete comments
Why should I take the risk of publishing what they will not own up to?
I think that an entirely reasonable position
You might want to actually make that clear in your comment policy page, at the moment all you have there on this is “I must be satisfied that […] The commentator is genuine”, which I for one took to be a prohibition on sockpuppetry, rather than pseudonymity.
I’m not sure what this prohibition is intended to solve, given that you cannot realistically authenticate all your commenters. You end up with a system [1] that would prohibit (for example) Unity from MoT, or Night Jack, or indeed George Orwell, but permit as many John Smiths and Jane Does and the like, all potentially mapped to one single user.
(Yes, I know the details I’ve provided run afoul of your clarified policy, but commenting was easier than digging up your e-mail address)
[1] Rather inconsistently applied (I’m presuming for example that Mr Theremustbeanotherway from the budget surplus thread has not changed his name by deed poll)
It means you would normally fail. I have no way of even guessing you’re real
Yes of course I may get this wrong
But very oddly – some who appear under odd names also have very obviously real email addresses – some of which I have used (I sometimes do test emails just to see if they work)
So Theremustbeanotherway is very real as far as I can see
And I will not take the risk of publishing those who are not
Why should I?
What’s the big deal about providing a real name and/or real e-mail address to demonstrate that you’re not just a troll or agent provocateur? By all means disagree with comments made but at least be man/woman enough to do so openly instead of carping from the shadows.
I may be wrong but the reason I read this blog is because it openly challenges the status quo – without fear or favour – in search of better, fairer solutions. In doing so, it strongly supports the principle of free speech. Hiding behind a veil of anonimity does the exact opposite.
If you’re offended by Richard’s policy, you need to grow some and demonstrate the conviction of your position, not whine.
It’s not as though we’re a police state – yet.
Not quite yet. Although with the gagging bill going through we could soon be on the final stretch..
Never forget, we have an election coming soon, or sooner, and the right-wind trolls will be out in force…maybe even inciting a few legal actions as well…
I am quite surprised that labour is a bit insipid when it comes to social networking..
I feel that you don’t like some comments. So you don’t publish them and try to hide behind a wall of not being real. When infact they are real views of the people of the UK. Or possibly views of people lives which you feel the need to change.
I will publish this
Although I have doubts as to whether you meet moderation requirements
I am a little disappointed in your defensiveness, towards subjects that you have claimed to be an expert in.
Sometimes debate is good, sometimes people are mistaken or have their own view. Just because someone has a different view, doesn’t make them wrong.
One of my reasons to read this blog, is you are a Quaker background. Now I have been to America and seen how the quakers lived over there. Of course Barclays and Lloyds are banks that were started by a Quaker. I felt it was interesting viewing a person outside the box of my friends.
If I not required to read, then I wont. I have better things to do.
Richard,
I have no problem giving my full name if you want it. However, until fairly recently I was a pension fund trustee. While I was a trustee, I published comments in my own name on a pensions website. I was hauled over the coals because my comments “might have been thought to represent the views of my fellow trustees”. I thought and still think my colleagues were being exceptionally silly, but I had to go along with it. I suspect there may be quite a few informed commentators who have this problem, for instance a big 4 accountant who privately shares your views.
I experimented to see if giving my full name with my email address works, it doesn’t.
I do not ask for a full name
I do look for an email that looks likely to be real and probably linked to a person
You’re definitely right Richard, and consistent, when enforcing transparency on your blog as well as elsewhere (ie. the subject of your blog and your activism ).
The point is not to be able to name a person writing non trivial comments, but to identify him. Identify on internet means simply what he decide to show in his signature: his blog URL, his linkedin/FB page etc. No RSA certificate or PGP key is needed or even relevant to discuss about ideas. They say nothing about the previous ideas or positions by the person.
Why not an open comments policy? Letting all and sundry make and defend their comments. Selective editing of comments is certainly a sibling of sock-pupetry.
Let the free flow of ideas flourish!
I have the legal risk
Why should I take that for anyone?
A disclaimer stating the opinions of commentators are not those of the site or the proprietor?
Does not work
What something like the Guardian Comment Is Free, which no one in their right mind would bother to read? I very much appreciate Richard’s moderation.
I know no sane person who reads CiF comments – including all the authors who publish on it whether Guardian staff or not
We all presume all comments are barking and not worth time engaging with
I do something quite different here
The problem with open comments policies is that they very often fall victim to “astroturfing” trolls – groups of people whose only purpose is to turn up the “noise” so much that any “signal” (in terms of intelligent debate) is lost. George Monbiot wrote a particularly good blog post on astroturfers here. In the face of this threat I think Richard’s comments policy represents the best solution.
Hey,
Mr. M., do I count as being ‘real’?
Cheers,
D.
You appear to have evidenced your reality
You’re also sometimes so off beam or excessive I delete you
I work in local government and deal with elected members as part of my job.
If any of my colleagues or I ever made our views known publicly in a way we could be identified, it would compromise our impartiality. It would be career death if politicians couldn’t trust us.
Your policy is effectively banning us from commenting. And the internet is one of the few places where we can discuss our opinions outside our own homes.
Shouldn’t you (and your readers) judge a comment on its merits? Whether it is from M Mouse or D Duck, what difference does it make?
I do not ask that you give a full name to the public
I look for a good chance the email address is likely to match a real person
And a credible comment helps!
So this is not stopping anyone
But it is making sure I think comment is real and not astro-turfing
I need to take a course in ‘blogspeak’: what is the precise definition of ‘astroturfing’ and how does it relate to artificial turf for sports grounds?
Try this
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/13/astroturf-libertarians-internet-democracy