It was recently raised on another thread (see comment below) that Tasmanian Times (TT) should prevent people posting comments under pseudonyms.
TT disagrees, though perhaps more for the sheer practical problems of implementing a ‘no anonymity’ policy than any other reason.
The current TT code of conduct states:
Pen names: As far as possible, we prefer people to contribute comments under their own real name. Tasmanian Times accepts that some good-faith contributors prefer to use a pen name. We also acknowledge that it is impossible to prevent people from registering under what appear to be real names using valid email addresses.
However, we ask that where people who work for private companies, government agencies or political parties post comments in work time promoting their employers’ policies, then they should be up-front about disclosing who they work for. Where we become aware that people are using anonymity to peddle their employers’ views without disclosure, we will err on deleting the comments.
In his comment below Peter Henning raises some valid points about the disadvantages of allowing comments to be submitted under pseudonyms.
TT’s current policy embodies three elements:
Our preference for people to submit comments under their own names;
An acknowledgement of the practical problems of a mandatory policy of ‘real names’ only policy; and
A clear statement that where editors become aware that where anonymity is being abused comments will be deleted.
Could TT make use of real names mandatory?
The argument that TT should make the use of real names mandatory for comments rests on the assumption that it would be practical to implement and that this could be done in a time-efficient manner. It is worth noting that TT publishes between 20,000 and 30,000 comments a year, with perhaps a quarter of these coming from people unknown to the editors. In a year there would probably be comments from perhaps at least five hundred new anonymous people.
To submit a comment to TT the software the site runs on requires a user name and an email address. The name and the email address may be real or made up.
At present, the only information which could be used for authentication purposes is the email address. So editors could email a new commenter to test whether the address was valid. However, as a valid email address can be created for a pseudonym, that alone is no proof that a comment submitted under that name is the same name as the real person writing it.
Additional information to disclose identity would be required. Assuming it was technically feasible at low cost to require more information, what evidence would suffice? The obvious ones would be a phone number and/or a street address. Implicit in seeking this information is the assumption that scarce editorial time could be diverted to be checking out the veracity of the information.
But neither a phone number nor a street address is proof of identity. ‘Fred Nurk’ could submit a comment under the name of ‘Bill Bloggs’ with a valid phone number and a street address. TT editors simply do not have the time to phone over 500 new anonymous commenters. But even if we did, ‘Fred Nurk’ could simply pretend to be ‘Bill Bloggs’ and we would be none the wiser. A valid street address is even less useful in establishing the real identity of a commenter.
The only practical way of implement a stricter policy on anonymity without increasing the workload on already overloaded editors would be to open less articles to comments.
Given the significant practical problems of implementing a stricter policy, TT considers the current policy strikes the right balance.
When TT surveyed readers a few years back the primary concern raised in relation to comments was about the need to be far stricter in not publishing comments which played the person and not the ball. This is what TT editors have sought to do. While we don’t claim to have perfected the art of moderating comments, we think we are getting better at it.
An edited version of Peter Henning’s comment …
What’s the world coming to when anonymity on that basis is given free rein? I’ll tell you. Anna Funder writes about it very well in Stasiland.
In relation to the editorial policy of TT re anonymity I regard it as intrinsically lacking in natural justice and eliminating an equal playing field for people or organisations to be able to hide behind anonymity to attack those who write under their own names.
Further, it should go without saying that any hint by those seeking to justify anonymity by suggesting that those who write under their names are using pseudonyms, should be stopped in its tracks at the source.
It should never be allowed to happen.
It is also clear that in adopting a liberal policy in relation to anonymity, TT should be aware that they have deliberately weakened their claim that commentary is a level playing field, for they have eliminated the right of those who write under their own name to know who their attackers are. That is inherently unfair and unjust.
TT would also be aware that their policy enables the use of the site by vested interests and political organisations across the board to promote their agenda without identifying themselves, against the interests of transparent and open discussion, and therefore against the public interest.
It is a matter of proper standards, of ethics, of democratic principle and transparency.
TT does have the opportunity to think more carefully about how it enables anonymity to be used in the public interest, for it is an issue which – like many others – needs to ensure the protection of whistleblowers while eliminating the freeloaders and those who seek to hide from the pressures and accountability of those they would criticise and attack.
Editor’s note: This is an edited version of a comment posted by Peter Henning on another thread. To avoid a comment thread on forestry to be dominated by a debate over TT’s comments policy we felt it better the issue was addressed separately here.
• Mungo Jerri-Can in Comments: Here’s a suggestion. The Tas Times should close down for 12 months. 12 months offline might give correspondents & editors time to cool off & perhaps reflect on the how the site has improved/detracted from their lives. 12 months offline might give some correspondents for whom EVERY debate is played for sheep stations a little time to cool off. 12 months offline might allow time for us all to reflect on our own hypocrisy & stupidity. It might allow breathing space for broken friendships to be repaired, for people to be able to walk down the street of their town without worrying about running into that person with whom they are having a bitter online. Think of it as you would a liver detox. 🙂
• Luke Martin in Comments: Tasmanian Times has always aspired to provide a credible alternative to the mainstream media. It should at least meet, if not aspire to a higher standard than the commercial media outlets. The Mercury has successfully and painlessly implemented a policy requiring individuals to leave an address or contact when posting a comment, and I think it’s dramatically cleaned up its forums. Tasmania Times should at least do the same. I suggest more people might be prepared to contribute articles and comments to this forum if they know they’re not then at the mercy of a bunch of anonymous antagonistic comments. The fear of retribution thing I think is a cop out. There is a clear process for whistle blowing through this and other media outlets that protects identities. Otherwise if you’re not prepared to leave your name i think you are either not certain of the accuracy of your statement, not personally committed to what you’re actually saying, or simply having a non-constructive gutless vent. Whatever the case I don’t believe a credible media source should encourage it anymore on this forum than it would encourage anonymous trolling on Twitter.
• Philip Lowe in Comments: The use of a pseudonym dilutes the content of a post, ie Mungo Jerry no 14. Tassie Times is an example of some of the best and free’est open and honest journalism in the world. Let the people speak. Leave it as it is. We can spot the ‘spinners’
• Mike Moore in Comments: As associate editor of The Mercury nearly 30 years ago I helped introduce the policy of not publishing letters from writers who wanted anonymity. Mainly, it was an attempt to be fair to those criticised as I believe it is axiomatic that victims should know the identity of their accuser. I still hold that view. I admit, however, it was relatively simple back then to check the identity of letter writers; not so now with 24-hour access to news sites and regular, often constant, updates. I truly do not know how a little organisation such as Tasmanian Times could check on all those who want to contribute opinions. Consequently, and in the interests of fairness, I believe TT should no longer publish letters to the editor. A simple and elegant solution to the problems caused by those who believe they need to remain anonymous. Mike Moore, Hervey Bay, long-time retired from journalism, thank Christ.
• Andrew Ricketts in Comments: Thankyou Ed. for Post #17. Regarding Mungo Jerri-Can Post #14: Avoidance is a poor strategy, which in the main simply does not work. Tasmanian Times should be valued more highly than to attempt its demise in the name of a liver detox. Indeed regarding the issue of broken friendships, I am astounded that the good and impartial Tasmania Times website has been misconstrued as a breaker of friendships. The people who claim to have managed to achieve a breaking down of friendships via Tasmania Times, would probably have managed to achieve such a result anyway, if they were being honest with themselves. I agree with Ted Mead (post #28) …
Steve in Comments: … I have noticed, since moving to Tasmania, that who you are is very important to locals. Questions about where you live, who you are related to, who owned your property/car/wife before you, who bred your dog etc, etc. Finally, when they realise you are another interloper from the mainland with no local connection, they give up and classify you as of no interest except as a potential victim of overcharging.
Stephan
July 12, 2015 at 12:23
Thank you for the forum you provide Linz. To all who read, I use my “real” name just not my family name as well. As far as I know there are three people with my full name on the planet.
Pete Godfrey
July 12, 2015 at 12:48
Hi Linz and Crew, thanks for the forum, I can understand that some folk want to be anonymous. I do not understand the reasons though that anyone would put forward to not stand behind their views but I can accept that some fear persecution for their beliefs.
It is a little confusing to see posts by industry representatives who use pseudonyms to push the point of view of their representative bodies.
Strange how one member of the Institute of Foresters is happy to post under his own name and another uses a pseudonym. Maybe the second fellow is posting his own personal views.
I am happy to leave the vetting of posts up to you and your editors.
Thanks again for the forum.
Pete
Mike Bolan
July 12, 2015 at 12:59
My understanding was that the core objection was to editing, rather than written policy.
Hence if a writer or commenter uses their real identity, then it appears grossly unfair to allow anonymous posters to attack that persons credibility because the anonymous party takes no risk, cannot be held accountable, and hence evades any relevant laws. The person who uses their real name is thus at a disadvantage because they can suffer real consequences while the anon poster does not.
The idea of everyone remaining anonymous is unlikely to be conducive to credibility. A glance at such sites on social media seems to demonstrate that.
Karl Stevens
July 12, 2015 at 13:52
Sarawak Report currently uses a Facebook login for its comments. I don’t think that is satisfactory because you have to use Facebook and accept the ‘profiling’ and advertising that goes with it.
Google blogger accepts anonymous comments which is how most of them are received. That makes it a ‘level playingfield’ with comments being moderated solely on content.
I’ve been commenting in forums for 20 years.
The most extreme were the ‘newsgroup’ forums such as ‘aus.politics’. There were even newsgroups devoted just to abuse and people who specialised in abusing others.
One of the scary developments online is that revealing somebody’s identity can lead to their death at the hands of religious extremists.
jack lumber
July 12, 2015 at 13:55
Hi At the risk of stating the obvious , I do not use a real name . However
1 I am not an industry rep . They are my views that I post
2 I am a member of the IFA and ACF and TWS and represent none of them .
3 Happy to leave the vetting to editors
Chris
July 12, 2015 at 14:17
Here’s several hundred reasons why.
http://sallymcmanus.net/abbotts-wreckage/
Andrew Ricketts
July 12, 2015 at 15:02
I have a strong personal preference for posting under my own name. To be clear, this is both my first (given or Christian) name and my surname. That is, two of the three names which appear on my birth certificate. I have no pseudonym.
I think it is reasonable to be identified when making statements on a public website or in other public situations.
I have no doubt that some genuinely fear persecution, discrimination and bigotry whenever they express their views. Indeed I know people who are fearful and for whom that fear is a real impediment to their democratic expression. Whether this is real or imagined makes little difference to the genuineness of their concern.
Tasmania is definitely a backward place where bullies operate, there is no doubt.
Nonetheless there are strong reasons for standing up and being sufficiently clear so people know who is saying what.
How do we know that a person using what is in effect an anonymous pseudonym isn’t actually using more than one, thus appearing to be multiple personalities? This form of deception can also apply when a person uses both their real name and a pseudonym in subsequent posts. This is surely a deceit and should be banned by Tas Times.
There does of course need to be ways of expressing organisational as well as personal views.
I trust more the people who appear (on a balance of probability) to be using their real name and prefer to have some knowledge with whom I am conversing. As Mike Bolan imputes, people who use their own name have more credibility but can suffer as a consequence.
Lynne Newington
July 12, 2015 at 15:06
I have to agree. Unless afraid of repurcussions I believe a contributor to the community should pen their name or make an arrangement with the editor to identify who they are and the reason why they don’t, out of courtesy at least.
Robin Charles Halton
July 12, 2015 at 15:14
#5 jack lumber, being a member of the IFA, Institute of Foresters of Australia should not exclude you from using your real name.
I am an ex Sen Tech Forester of FC and FT and I am not afraid to express my views either way on forestry issues.
I still some contact with FT and often have a quiet friendly chat with Steve Whiteley when I meet him in the street.
It is easy to tell those who are afraid to engage with me by their body language, too bad for them and not me.
I still basically support FT and particular parts of the forest industry but there still needs to be many changes.
We don’t want you to slip though the cracks Jack, your contributions are good and strengthen the necessity for a native forest based industry to be recognised for future wood production, it isn’t happening at the moment due to the recent past of poor decision making by the past Labor /Green government, the Liberals are showing little sign of being much better.
Phil Lohrey
July 12, 2015 at 15:24
Forums in The Age and the Guardian allow synonyms, and the vast majority of posters use them.
This policy enables vigorous, revealing and necessary political debate. It preserves free speech.
The readership of the Tasmanian Times is derived from a much smaller community. Often, people posting in forums risk abuse and discrimination from neighbours, local employers and officials. Insistence on use of real names can therefore severely limit opinion and deter participation.
This particularly applies to people with little power in the community. They often do not have the resources or clout of people who make the loudest noises and gain media coverage in Tasmania.
The TT editors discourage attacks on the person whilst urging forum participants to keep threads on topic. When this editorial policy is fostered, surely open debate is best served by allowing anonymity.
The power of participation in the Tasmanian Times can be preserved without the bullying made possible by attaching names to opinion. Though credentials can be relevant, arguments must stand on their merits and not their authorship.
john hayward
July 12, 2015 at 16:56
We can thank Andrew Nikolic for demonstrating the impracticality of requiring real name verification. We can’t trust official information nor believe that there are serious consequences for official lying.
There’s no harm in being cautious of everything you read, particularly in statements of alleged fact, in the absence of independent verification.
John Hayward
Leonard Colquhoun
July 12, 2015 at 17:55
Congrats on this editorial decision, which makes sense when judged by the ‘opportunity cost’ criterion, which essentially asks whether (far) more important matters are being neglected because time, energy, money & resources are being diverted to this specific matter. Basically, the decision applies a triage MO.
Yes, such prioritising can seem immoral, cruel and ‘discriminatory’, but a hypothetical medical example might clarify the crux of this matter. $20,000,000 could be spent on, say, EITHER improving palliative care for an incurable condition afflicting 0.01% of the population, OR on developing a cure for a disease fatal to 10.0% of the population, an example where the ‘opportunity cost’ is huge.
Another example would the (Hobart) northern suburbs Toy Train: would the $200,000,000 costs be better spent on, say, upgrading country roads / discrete bicycle paths / traffic calming / more flexible but smaller vehicle ‘public’ transport?
Anyway, surely one cost of anonymity can be a loss or lack of credibility?
Garry Stannus
July 12, 2015 at 18:10
There is a separate, yet concomitant, issue to be considered alongside this question of anonymity – civility. In supporting the use of one’s own name in online discussions, I do so for a number of reasons. I expect that people will temper their remarks, that their contributions will be of better quality if they attach their real name to their comments.
Of course, as we saw in that other thread, what is true of some is not true of all. Another reason that I like people to give their actual names is that in some cases it can help me assess/interpret their comments. I know that one point of view has it that we should judge only the content of a person’s comment, that it’s irrelevant to know that person’s name, that to judge a person’s argument we do not need to know that person’s identity. And that is true to an extent, for example, we see some merit in examiners not knowing the identity of the person whose exam paper they are marking. Yet it is often helpful to know something about the person whose propositions we are trying to digest – especially in this online environment where many of the cues that accompany face to face discourse are absent.
By the way, while on the road yesterday, I listened to an interesting Radio National program called ‘Future Tense’. This particular edition was called ‘Online comments a “wicked†problem‘. Coincidentlly it dealt with some aspects of online anonymity and civility. The second half of the program will be broadcast next Sunday. You can listen to (or read the transcript of) yesterday’s program [Here].
Back closer to home, I should make some points about the case for anonymity. The other side of the ‘civility coin’ is that some of us with-hold our true thoughts on some subjects for fear of being publicly judged adversely. In face-to-face discussion ‘we’ (meaning me) cut our conversational cloth to fit the circumstances. By this I mean that we’ll say one thing to a close friend, while expressing ourselves differently to an acquaintance, to our boss or – for that matter – to the bloke who pulls petrol down at our local garage. To whom do we ever tell the whole truth?
Online it’s a sharper ball-game. I suggest that given that our comments can or will be viewed by a unknown number and range of people, ‘we’ (I) are often circumspect about how much of our real thoughts we parade in public. Maybe anonymity does allow the true thoughts to come out.
However fanciful this last may be, there are other, more telling reasons why I think we should accept anonymous comments in some circumstances. I know of a small number of people who have explained on Tasmanian Times the reasons for their use of screen-names. Two examples that comes to mind involve men who, if identified, would lose their livelihood or in the second instance, would suffer a repeat of actual attacks on the family home – something which few parents would invite if there was a way to speak publicly (i.e. anonymously) without possible adverse consequences on one’s family members. Then again, there are the whistleblower considerations.
So while wishing that we could all ‘see’ who is at the other end of the keyboard, I accept that for some, there are good reasons why they should remain unknown. However, I think that such a privilege – that of public anonymity – should be acknowledged by those choosing to remain anonymous.
Q How to acknowledge this ‘privilege’?
A By scrupulously avoiding ‘ad hominems’, by maintaining ‘tone’ and relevance as well as by respecting the ‘single persona’ TT requirement. I expect more, not less from those who speak from behind the curtain.
In closing, Tas Times has advanced the issue of practicality, verification and the like. And those are strong points. There are only so many hours in the day and but few helpers. However, Lindsay, you have (some time ago) allowed the use of multiple persona when, in my judgement, it suited your then purposes. Which leaves us with the question of ‘Quis custes custodiet?’… aka … how do we keep the editor on the ‘straight and narrow’?
Ed:?????
Mungo Jerri-Can
July 12, 2015 at 21:45
Here’s a suggestion.
The Tas Times should close down for 12 months.
12 months offline might give correspondents & editors time to cool off & perhaps reflect on the how the site has improved/detracted from their lives.
12 months offline might give some correspondents for whom EVERY debate is played for sheep stations a little time to cool off.
12 months offline might allow time for us all to reflect on our own hypocrisy & stupidity.
It might allow breathing space for broken friendships to be repaired, for people to be able to walk down the street of their town without worrying about running into that person with whom they are having a bitter online.
Think of it as you would a liver detox. 🙂
Barry
July 12, 2015 at 22:59
interesting argument however I still intend to remain anonymous. I do not make a stack of comments but when I do ,I try to stay on topic and not target the man. I have certainly made comments that try to counteract comments by others or in fact correct them in fact(as I see it)but I try to be succinct ,not personally judgemental.
In my work life I have certainly clashed with a few of the writers on this forum and have no doubt I would be attacked personally if I used my name,regardless of the tone of my comments.
I prefer to avoid any personal attacks (on me) and make comments which I believe are relevant.
JDN
July 12, 2015 at 23:30
TT can implement forced names if they so wish, and nobody is forced to stay here if they disagree.
However, it does open a can of worms. Anonymity at its foundation preserves freedom of speech, or at least the option to remain anonymous. I’m sure most of us have heard of the phrase “tyranny of the majority” – made famous by James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the US constitution.
Anonymity ensures that people can express opinions without fear of public retribution or ridicule, or even Government oppression (certain Tasmanian Liberal party ministers come to mind).
Anonymity allows all people to have an equal pedestal when voicing opinions, and each person is entitled to express any opinion they hold.
Anonymity fosters environments of true, unrestricted free speech, the same free speech modern philosophers have regarded as the most important right to ones liberty, it is the first amendment after all.
“In Talley v. California (1960),[83] the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. Justice Hugo Black wrote in the majority opinion: “There can be no doubt that such an identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby freedom of expression … Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.”[84] In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995)”
Editors
July 12, 2015 at 23:48
#3 Mike the central problem is how can editors decide who is real and who isn’t. Let’s say a new commenter appears on a thread under the name of “Frank Hendricks” from a gmail address. How are editor’s to know whether it is a real person or not?
There is something to be said for the argument that if people choose to use a pseudonym it is better for readers that it is clear they are using a pen name ie ‘Jack Jumper’ instead of “Frank Hendricks”. That way readers can decide for themselves how much weight to give to the views advanced.
#7: Andrew wrote “How do we know that a person using what is in effect an anonymous pseudonym isn’t actually using more than one, thus appearing to be multiple personalities? This form of deception can also apply when a person uses both their real name and a pseudonym in subsequent posts. This is surely a deceit and should be banned by Tas Times.”
TT’s code of conduct http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/pages/legalbits states in point 5 “One persona: Sometimes it is obvious that one person is creating multiple personas to submit comments. Sometimes this can be multiple personas on one thread to create the illusion that multiple people support one view. Sometimes one persona is used on one thread and another on a different thread. Where TT is aware that multiple personas have been used by one person, the comments will be deleted.”
Where we see breaches, the comments are deleted. Where it seems to be a first time offence, the comment is deleted and a pointer to the provisions of the TT code is substituted. After a crackdown on this over the last few years, there have been – as far as we can tell – very few instances in the last year.
#13 Garry – thanks for the pointer to the Future Tense program which we weren’t aware of. The program can be downloaded or listened to here http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/online-comments-1/6564898
And thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments on what is a thorny problem.
Claire Gilmour
July 13, 2015 at 00:11
I like the policy of using your real name and only having one pen name known to the editor. Because sometimes this is required.
I have absolutely no doubt of the ed committing to keep the anonominity of whistleblowers sacred.
There is no doubt that there are political ‘spin doctors’ posting … it is not their personal opinion, although they pretend it to be, it is simply toeing and pushing a party line. I have no respect for them. So if they choose to post a comment and are allowed to, then I think I should be allowed to question them … no holes barred. Gander for the goose perhaps?
Luke Martin
July 13, 2015 at 00:48
Tasmanian Times has always aspired to provide a credible alternative to the mainstream media. It should at least meet, if not aspire to a higher standard than the commercial media outlets.
The Mercury has successfully and painlessly implemented a policy requiring individuals to leave an address or contact when posting a comment, and I think it’s dramatically cleaned up its forums. Tasmania Times should at least do the same. I suggest more people might be prepared to contribute articles and comments to this forum if they know they’re not then at the mercy of a bunch of anonymous antagonistic comments.
The fear of retribution thing I think is a cop out. There is a clear process for whistle blowing through this and other media outlets that protects identities. Otherwise if you’re not prepared to leave your name i think you are either not certain of the accuracy of your statement, not personally committed to what you’re actually saying, or simply having a non-constructive gutless vent. Whatever the case I don’t believe a credible media source should encourage it any more on this forum that it would encourage anonymous trolling on Twitter.
Philip Lowe
July 13, 2015 at 01:26
The use of a pseudonym dilutes the content of a post, ie Mungo Jerry no 14. Tassie Times is an example of some of the best and free’est open and honest journalism in the world. Let the people speak. Leave it as it is. We can spot the ‘spinners’ (and Australia needs a few of those this summer in the UK). God bless you Tuffin,S ee you at the bar afore long.I t’s been a few long winters.
eddie taylor
July 13, 2015 at 13:29
#19 ‘The Mercury has successfully and painlessly implemented a policy requiring individuals to leave an address or contact when posting a comment, and I think it’s dramatically cleaned up its forums.’
Hi Luke, as you would be aware, not everything is as it seems. Here is a reply I received from the Mercury after I pointed out an obvious made up name on an online comment;
‘Hi Eddie.
Thought I’d email you with a bit of an explanation about your comment regarding names.
The reason for bringing in the requirement for full names a couple of years ago was two-fold.
First, to bring the website more in line with the letters policy in the paper, where a full name is required.
And second, to lift the quality of the “debate” that occurred on stories.
True, a lot of people won’t abide by the restriction and won’t comment, and we were prepared to wear that loss.
And it’s also true that a lot of people have just picked a pseudonym to post under.
But as long as they stick with the same name all the time, and it isn’t an obviously fake name, we’re prepared to be a bit lenient.’
(I prefer not to share the Mercury writer’s name as it was a reply addressed to me)
I have a problem with this blind eye approach as the bulk who abide by the rule would be unaware some aren’t.
Jane Rankin-Reid
July 13, 2015 at 13:46
There is no such thing as free speech in a small isolated community where half the power elite are related to each other and the other half are dependent upon these same interelated people all keeping each other’s secrets. Dynastic intergenerational candidate stacking in political parties on both sides of the spectrum further creates a perception of a zero end game for the rest of us not related to anyone in power. TT was set up with solid journalistic principals, but the need for anonimity was important to support to encourage the flow of information, for people who’d been continually thereatened by the then power elite, yes Labor, of not being employable for their crimes of speaking out. Hence the importance of anonimity on this site. From a provinicial bureaucratic mindset, this editorial privilege (yes Lindsay knows each and every one of his anonymous contributors) may seem hard to accept, but seriously, its not always about you and your departments. Anonimity on TT is about the function of democracy
Mike Bolan
July 13, 2015 at 13:47
#17 Eds. The eds do know who some of the contributors are, and in those cases might take special care in editing actions to help assure that anon posts are balanced to provide as fair an environment as practicable. Without such balance, authors may find that on-line hassles are a deterrent to publication, particularly since there can exist a permanent record of critical remarks.
Mike
July 13, 2015 at 14:13
If people want the full name and suburb thing they can always visit the Mercury site. You will be a bit lonely however. Since they implemented that policy I have noticed the comments have died off almost completely.
There are more comments on this thread alone than the entire Mercury for the week. I hardly visit it any more.
Editors
July 13, 2015 at 15:30
#19: Luke: Thanks for your comment which raises some substantive points. It is worth addressing the main points you raise.
“The Mercury has successfully and painlessly implemented a policy requiring individuals to leave an address or contact when posting a comment, and I think it’s dramatically cleaned up its forums. Tasmania Times should at least do the same.â€
It’s certainly true that The Mercury’s comment stream is far better than it was but it is unclear that this can be solely attributed to requiring a name and contact of people submitting a contact. The question remains whether it was simply correlation rather than causation. The correlation hypothesis is that at the same time that they required a name and contact number they also introduced new moderation standards determining what comments would be deleted and perhaps even changed staff.
TT experience is that comments which breach or skate close to the edge of the TT code are just as likely to be from people using their real name as people using pen names.
You also wrote that “the fear of retribution thing I think is a cop out. There is a clear process for whistle blowing through this and other media outlets that protects identities.â€
I think we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this. TT knows of numerous instances where retribution by government agencies, companies and individuals against those speaking out publicly has been real and sometimes with profound consequences. We wish that weren’t the case but it is not uncommon.
While you argue that “if you’re not prepared to leave your name i think you are either not certain of the accuracy of your statement, not personally committed to what you’re actually saying, or simply having a non-constructive gutless vent†we know numerous instances where none of that applies and senior people in government agencies, the media and elsewhere making thoughtful constructive comments.
It is also important to note that not everyone in society has equal power. Increasingly, employers are willing to sack individuals for participating in social media. For example, it is worth bearing in mind the case of Michaela Banerji who in 2013 was sacked by Immigration Department for criticising the agency via an anonymous Twitter account which didn’t even identify the author as working for the department. Her sacking was cleared by Federal Circuit Court Judge Warwick Neville who proclaimed that individuals do not have an “unfettered implied right (or freedom) of political expressionâ€. http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-servant-loses-fight-over-twitter-attack-on-government-20130812-2rsgn.html
Assuming it is easy and cheap to tweak the software to require an address and/or contact number the question is whether the information is gathered to bluff people into submitting better comments or for actual use in checking authenticity.
In our experience comments submitted under a pen name are of no lesser quality than those under a real name in which case mandating disclosure will make little difference.
If the point of gathering a contact number is to use it then it creates other problems. As comment numbering is based on when a comment was submitted, holding off publication until a number has been called and a response obtained would inevitable result in many other comments being held up. (The alternative is to ‘park’ new authors comments while publishing subsequent comments first and then – after verification – publish the new commenters contributions. The downside of this is that it screws up the numbering sequence and causes chaos with comments that refer to specific earlier comments by number.)
So in our view there is no perfect solution.
If the use of a pen name makes little difference to the quality of the comment then the ultimate test is whether the public interest is best served by providing a forum for points of view which would otherwise not get an airing.
mr t
July 13, 2015 at 16:29
#22 Jane, you are quite correct. Linz is aware of my identity but I also receive pressure from working family members, in particular, as to various threads I choose to comment upon. I have no love of any political party or tier of government but recognise others have to live in the same world. I see many governments, associations and corporations as being more capable of doing better than they do at present. I, too, wish to work with various tiers of government at a community level and garner a productive working relationship. There is a political tightrope I have to walk and it’s not all about TT, other posters or other media. TT has a much more liberated style than News Ltd or ABC The Drum (to nominate but two) where controversial opinions or even simple facts become one step too far in some instances. Linz sometimes tempers my expressions but it is his prerogative to do so…plus he is probably right 🙂
Simon Warriner
July 13, 2015 at 20:41
Interesting yet repetitive. We have done this subject to death previously, haven’t we?
The Mockery comments are pretty much a waste of space and that supposedly journalistic organ would, I strongly suspect, be greatly improved if they employed a real investigative journo to follow up on the leads given to them in the comments they choose not to publish.
I have published under an alias in the past when the subject matter was such that my open comments might have drawn others related to me by domestic circumstance or employment into the fray. Why should my view be silenced because this society has more than its fair share of vindictive bureaucratic psychopaths whose skins are far to easily pierced by the sharp end of a hard truth?
I reckon the editors here do a bloody wonderful job most of the time, especially when one considers what they are earning for their efforts.
Leave it as it is Linz, we know who the spin doctors are and are capable enough to rate their comments accordingly.
Ted Mead
July 13, 2015 at 21:36
It seems almost impossible to weed out pen-named hecklers, so I guess we have to accept it.
Conversely, I give my full name and location to the blog comments on both the Mercury and Tas Times.
Tas Times always reproduce my comments online, with minute accounts of editing, whilst the Mercury rarely prints my opinions, even though it has no personal condemnations beyond politicians.
I’m sure I’m not alone there, so TT really is the only non-biased, over screened forum for someone to expresses their views!
Long Live Tas Times!!!!!!!!
Steve
July 13, 2015 at 22:41
I’ve been a bit slow getting to this debate as work has kept me away from the computer for a couple of days. I think this has been a good thing as there’s some excellent comments being presented.
I think Phil (#10) accurately summed up the situation in one sentence “Though credentials can be relevant, arguments must stand on their merits and not their authorship.”.
I liken the situation to that of an artist, proudly standing beside his new painting, when a bloke walks up and says “Hi, my names Jim. I quite like your painting, but I think you’ve used too much colour”. The alternative first sentences he could use are “Hi, my name’s Jim Smith.” or “Hi, my name’s Jim Smith, the well known art critic.”
How should our artist react to these various scenarios? One sort of artist would smile politely, treat each critic courteously and discuss the reasons for their criticism. He might place a lot more weight on the opinions expressed by the art critic but treat each equally.
Another sort of artist would fire up, rail at the first critic along the lines of “How dare you criticise my work when you won’t use your surname”; against the second critic “..what do you know about art?” and the third ” .. you wrote that rubbish review last month, you’re not worth listening to!”
Both of these artists are to be found amongst the contributors to TT, along with all shades in between. This is however this is simply my philosophical take on the situation.
The practical side is somewhat different. As the editors have accurately described, it’s very hard to verify identity on-line. That practically sums up that side of the problem.
On the other side, that of the poster, consider someone in a relatively lowly government job. A ministerial driver would be a good example, but there’s heaps of others. Sticking with the driver, he’s privy to much confidential information and opinion, and yet his political opinions may be poles apart from his employer.
Should this person not be allowed to express their opinions? They might be totally honest and never reveal anything confidential, but how long would they remain in employment if their employer knew they posted “radical” opinions on TT? That situation would be reality for many anonymous posters but if they’re honest and don’t reveal anything they shouldn’t, there’s nothing to distinguish them from any other poster, apart from the pseudonym.
I think it right and proper that readers of comments should use their judgement as to how much weight they place on the opinions expressed. Personally, I base my judgements more on previous performance and content, rather than on the degree of identity. Whether there’s a “real name” or not, there’s still a person writing the comment, however they are identified. If I decide they are malicious, or fraudulent, I pass on, otherwise they are all entitled to equal respect.
TT always has an obvious course of action open, which is to require registration before posting. Identities can be verified at leisure, then those posting choose what name they wish to post under, but all identities are verified.
William Boeder
July 14, 2015 at 02:04
#26. 27. 28. Each of these opinions suffice for whatever I could offer into this subject matter. Thank you Ed’s for the continuing provision of the Tasmanian Times media platform, a rare gemstone found among the proliferation of synthetic fool’s gold. (pro-American war-machine media platforms.)
(Not wanting to breach the TT Codes of Conduct here, however my comment below is relevant if one takes the time to read fully into the folly of Australia’s Liberal government signed acceptance to the just recent highly controversial American Trade Agreement, then of its censoring power provisions right across the entire face of Australia.).
Ralph Wessman
July 14, 2015 at 10:52
something along similar lines, from Barry Jones’ ‘A Thinking Reed’, picked up cheaply from an op shop a couple of days ago & a seriously good read…
Immediately after Cabinet’s decision to hang (apparently by an 11 to 4 margin, although no formal vote was taken), I convened an urgent meeting of the Anti-Hanging Committee, issued a press release and gave some radio interviews. On one of the last days of the school year, the telephone rang in the staff room. It was Premier Henry Bolte. He said. ‘I am sick of your attacks on the government. You are exploiting your popularity and abusing your position as a teacher. If you don’t shut up you are finished.’
I took the hint, and resigned forthwith from the Victorian Education Department and held a press conference. I said: ‘I do not want to be paid from the same purse that pays the hangman.’ I regretted leaving Dandenong High School, where I had a significance and made many lasting friendships, but could see no alternative.
(referring again to Ronald Ryan a few pages on, Jones writes ‘If it is to be ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ this will soon be a blind and toothless world’)
Ralph Wessman
July 14, 2015 at 12:35
my bad. ‘significant influence’, not ‘where I had a significance’…
Got Me a Cloak
July 14, 2015 at 17:23
If I must give my name to you sonny
This website will go down the dunny
I retain my dark cloak
That hides me from folk
Coz I fear that my rhymes are not funny
mike moore
July 14, 2015 at 17:40
As associate editor of The Mercury nearly 30 years ago I helped introduce the policy of not publishing letters from writers who wanted anonymity. Mainly, it was an attempt to be fair to those criticised as I believe it is axiomatic that victims should know the identity of their accuser. I still hold that view. I admit, however, it was relatively simple back then to check the identity of letter writers; not so now with 24-hour access to news sites and regular, often constant, updates. I truly do not know how a little organisation such as Tasmanian Times could check on all those who want to contribute opinions. Consequently, and in the interests of fairness, I believe TT should no longer publish letters to the editor. A simple and elegant solution to the problems caused by those who believe they need to remain anonymous. Mike Moore, Hervey Bay, long-time retired from journalism, thank Christ.
Andrew Ricketts
July 14, 2015 at 20:02
Thankyou Ed. for Post #17.
Regarding Mungo Jerri-Can Post #14: Avoidance is a poor strategy, which in the main simply does not work.
Tasmanian Times should be valued more highly than to attempt its demise in the name of a liver detox.
Indeed regarding the issue of broken friendships, I am astounded that the good and impartial Tasmania Times website has been misconstrued as a breaker of friendships.
The people who claim to have managed to achieve a breaking down of friendships via Tasmania Times, would probably have managed to achieve such a result anyway, if they were being honest with themselves.
I agree with Ted Mead (post #28) and very much appreciate all those people, especially the females who decide to publish under their own name, such as Post #18. Perhaps the suggestion made in Post 29 is a remedy to some of the issues and concerns of some of us.
Regarding post 27, with respect, it clearly has not been done to death and indeed some very interesting debate and points have been made.
But regardless of the outcome of this discussion I wholeheartedly agree with Warriner’s: “I reckon the editors here do a bloody wonderful job most of the time, especially when one considers what they are earning for their efforts.â€.
Hear, hear.
Mick
July 15, 2015 at 00:18
Long live anonymity.
well done TT
Mungo Jerri Can
July 15, 2015 at 00:39
#35 The only thing that surprises me about your … claim that my #14 comment was an “attempt” to bring about the “demise” of TT is it didn’t come sooner on this thread. Sigh.
Doug Nichols
July 15, 2015 at 14:26
I have a slight issue with the multiple persona policy. I post (infrequently) with my real name, but there is a specific subject area that comes up now and then about which I have some fairly strong views but also a good reason not to want to use my real name. So I remain silent, which is frustrating. Could the policy be loosened slightly to allow single-issue pseudonyms? (Perhaps provided the editor knows who the pseudonym belongs to?)
mark
July 15, 2015 at 16:37
I got a good chuckle out of Luke Martin’s comments regarding The Mercury. Concoct a name, email address and Tasmanian suburb in your head. Visit any Mercury article with comments enabled and write a comment. Switch on your VPN, concoct another name, email address and Tasmanian suburb.
Within the hour both comments will be up. Only the truly naive would believe half of the names used at the mercury are real.
As it goes, I’m just your average moron, but I really don’t want to be added to one of Abetz’s or Nikolic’s lists, so I’ll keep my anonymity, thanks.
Lyle Allan
July 16, 2015 at 15:45
I am currently being stalked by a person I know to be an administrator at one of Melbourne’s worst high schools. He places offensive comments about me under different names on various blogs wherever I post anything. He has looked at my entries on social media.
The problem is that I cannot prove that it is him although circumstantial evidence which I won’t detail here suggests clearly who it is.
On one occasion this person placed a very nasty, inaccurate and possibly defamatory post about myself on Tasmanian Times, using a first name that wasn’t his. I cannot obtain information about his IP address without a court order.
What can I do? Richard Nixon once suggested that taking legal action only spreads the smear The best thing I can do is possibly to ignore it. It was about six months after the offending post on TT was brought to my attention, so it probably doesn’t matter and almost no one would have read it.
Mike Bolan
July 16, 2015 at 17:02
This thread appears to inadvertantly demonstrate that ‘one size fits all’ policies don’t really represent much except ease of explanation for these who edit.
Personally, I support anonymity of comments, I also support the rights of authors not to be unreasonably vilified or derided.
The Editors seem to favor some kind of written policy that covers all eventualities while readers fall anywhere across a spectrum of views.
It’s possible to meet most requirements by editors remaining sensitive to individual authors needs while still supporting anonymity for those who want it however it’s likely that a flexible approach like that cannot be written easily into a policy. The same is true for our laws, which attempt to fit every situation into some definition but that fail to do so with increasing frequency.
The lesson that can usually be drawn from ‘work to rule’ is that the rules don’t work.
I suggest that the editors exercise their discretion to allow individual authors some level of protection from the frequently offensive comments of anonymous posters to save them the bother of proving (again) that the rules don’t work!
Apart from that, TT is doing what TT does as far as I’m concerned.
ED: TT has a rule that writers can request comments not be turned on. Few writers request that …
Claire Gilmour
July 16, 2015 at 19:52
Love the stalkers ! … they are great, gives you some full bodied ‘milk’ with your cereal at breakfast!
Can’t be scared of them … they feed the knowledge that truth is not what they want.
Just get a machete, a pair of leopard skin tights, chuck in a bit o attitude … and voila, they either start talking or disappear. Well that’s what I do as a little pretty bright eyed 5’3â€, 45 kg woman on my own living in the middle of the bush. … and then eat ‘em for breakfast or dinner online 😉
Steve
July 16, 2015 at 21:14
#40; Sounds unpleasant Lyle. I would suggest the simplest solution with regard to the TT post is to ask the editors to remove it, even if it is months later. TT’s code of conduct does not allow personally offensive posts but they are sometimes overlooked until the subject objects.
In many ways, your situation reinforces the sense in anonymity. Unless it is important to you to have your name connected with your views, post under an alias. You are then able to express your true opinions without harassment from your pet pest.
#41; TT doesn’t have rules, it has a code of conduct which is a much more flexible arrangement allowing the editors to use their judgement. In the thread from which this one germinated, I felt that the editors were favouring someone posting under two names over those obviously posting under pseudonyms. This situation was corrected and this thread created to discuss the situation. This suggests to me that the current arrangement is working, and working well. Reading most of the comments above, it would seem that most other people agree.
I can’t help but feel that the whole “true name” thing is a bit of a small town hangup. In places with larger populations, unless someone is a well known figure or has a specific qualification, true name or alias makes little difference.
I have noticed, since moving to Tasmania, that who you are is very important to locals. Questions about where you live, who you are related to, who owned your property/car/wife before you, who bred your dog etc, etc. Finally, when they realise you are another interloper from the mainland with no local connection, they give up and classify you as of no interest except as a potential victim of overcharging.
mike moore
July 17, 2015 at 10:59
I sometimes ponder, for at least a split second, whether Voltaire would have fought to the death for a person’s right to freedom of speech had the speaker been named “Anonymous”. Should courage be sacrificed to reward cowardice, no matter how compelling the case may seem to be a coward? Should a person who is unafraid to use their own name be criticised by those who are? Mike Moore, Hervey Bay.
Noah Harrison
January 4, 2017 at 05:55
Within the top ten of the favourite content pieces, thankyou!
Leonard Colquhoun
January 4, 2017 at 12:27
From classical logic: ‘argumentum ad rem’ – yes; ‘argumentum ad hominem’ – no. (With exceptions of course – as with socks, no mantra fits all. (Thank Comment 41 for that reminder – it is the most basic cause for the failure of all ideologies, whatever they’re based on.)
From classic theology: love / hate the sin, not the sinner. (With ‘sinner’ having meanings way beyond the theological.) Ideologues of whatever stamp can rarely grasp this even if they wanted to, let alone apply it.
Finally, what’s the target audience? Or purpose? Sneering hate-filled ad hominem ranting is a turn-off to almost all except true believers. Sometimes it is highly amusing in a sardonic sort of way; several frequently repeated posts spring to mind! Reasonable people will often re-read (that’s the key) an ad rem case they’d usually ignore, if it’s well argued and to the point.
One of the best parts of 1990s Victorian Yr 11 & 12 [compulsory, general] English (once it grew up from the initial Kirner-era travesty) was the study of how language is used in argument. Note: NOT a case itself, but how it was put – in Yr 11, a teacher could use that criterion to ‘do’ a page of Mein Kampf, or an Islamist mass-murderer’s self-justification. Could, but . . .
Claire Gilmour
January 4, 2017 at 21:51
No anon-a-mouse or very few anymore … ‘cos mostly you’re tracked and traced ….
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-05/telco-industry-pushes-for-metadata-collection-changes/8162896
Oh shite, did I just say on my mobile ph recently that I was trying to find a Giant Freshwater Lobster in my creek to show my niece and nephew why we should save fresh water creeks before they left to live in Hervey Bay Qld? … Hell perhaps the police and inland fisheries will sky drop in and harass me, tie me up, tell me I’m a naughty girl and then fine me for trying to protect a threatened species! Come on, make my day, I dare ya!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdw1uKiTI5c
Lynne Newington
January 5, 2017 at 12:25
#48 It seems to bring back the question of whether Brandis and Abbott running the country at the time were fascists….
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/is-the-abbott-government-fascist.
Dr Peter Lozo
January 5, 2017 at 21:28
Hi all,
Although this isn’t the appropriate TT blog for my brief post I thought that the most efficient way I could reach a large portion of the Tasmanian community is to post on a few non-related blogs. So, if you are at all interested in a scientist’s perspective on a case that most Tasmania’s are aware off (the disappearance of Mr Robert (Bob) Adrian Chappell from his yacht Four Winds on the Australia Day 2009) then please read my recently shared facebook post on the case:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=559237520946318&id=100005802249120
If any of you wish to discuss this case with me then please do so via the formal TT commentary in the relevant TT blogs referred to in my mentioned facebook post.
Regards,
Peter
Peter Lozo, BSc, PhD
Applied Physicist/Perceptual Scientist
Adelaide, SA
Ps: my biography is at
https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/eleceng-announcements/2014/06/26/research-seminar-17th-july-dr-p-lozo-adaptive-resonance-theory-art-and-lamina/
Leonard Colquhoun
January 5, 2017 at 22:06
Absolutely no question about the answer to the question in #49 evoked by #48.