Own your words!

Newspapers of the good, old-fashioned variety. Courtesy of the author.

You know, the readers and commenters of USDemocrazy have things pretty darn good. Yes, you get to read OUR AWESOME CONTENT, but also, we let you post your thoughts to our site anonymously!

Now what if we told you that anonymous posting could be a thing of the past?

We noticed a little discussion going on about this topic over at the NPR blog, The Two-Way. Those guys started a discussion there on how sometimes, anonymous comments lower the standard of dialog on a certain topic, on a blog, online newspaper, or elsewhere. They continue:

If the subject of a story is particularly controversial, the comment thread that follows can be, and often is, filled with ad hominem attacks, insults and profanity.

This kind of dubious activity on the comment section of one newspaper’s website in particular, The Buffalo News, who will soon be requiring commenters to leave their name and town along with their words (hopefully) of insight. The news editor, Margaret Sullivan, has hopes for this change:

The aim of publishing reader comments, all along, has been to have a free-flowing discussion of stimulating and worthwhile ideas — something of a virtual village square.

Now that people’s names will be attached to their ideas, we’re hoping that aim, finally, will be achieved.

There are obviously two sides to this issue: one side says that removing the anonymity of commenters would also remove the candid and frank discussion that many people crave; the other side wants to make sure that the newspaper maintains integrity of its image.

In the first camp, this post at techdirt.com argues,

Techdirt gets a lot of comments, including the occasional unfriendly one from a jerk. Sometimes this jerk is anonymous — but if they’re a jerk, it doesn’t much matter if they’re anonymous or using their real name.

However, Rem Rieder writing for the American Journalism Review, insists that comments should be of the same caliber of letters to the editor in the print edition, which require people to stand naked by their words with their name:

The practice of allowing anonymous comments on online news sites has always been problematic. For years newspapers have insisted that letters to the editor be accompanied by the actual name of the actual person who wrote them. The thinking was that if you want to make some bold statements, you ought to be willing to take responsibility for them.

When discourse gets messy, we’re wondering if it’s the fault of the anonymity, or is it just humanity in general? Will Arnold X from Buffalo care who thinks his comments are racist when commenting on a newspaper article in Los Angeles?

It will be interesting to see who follows suit in this changeover from anonymous to public. It just makes you wonder: Would you censor your comments if you knew people could see your name?