Anonymous postings are taking a pasting but don’t let abuse drown out the conversation on the web

This is a piece I've written for TheMediaBriefing website about the issue of anonymous postings:

It’s the most heartless post I’ve ever read on a news website.

The St. Petersburg Times in the US ran a story last September about a cyclist killed in a late night hit-and-run accident. The victim was named as Neil Alan Smith who was on his way home from his job as a dishwasher at the Crab Shack restaurant. He died in hospital six days after the accident. He was 48.

Shortly after the paper announced Mr. Smith's death on its website, a reader posted this comment: "A man who is working as a dishwasher at the Crab Shack at the age of 48 is surely better off dead."

Not surprisingly, web editors removed the comment, deeming it an offensive and insensitive insult to a dead man's friends and family. The comment spurred the Times to make Mr. Smith the subject of story to show, in the paper's words, "that every life matters".

The poisonous posting about a fatal accident shows how degraded the much heralded openness of the “conversation” everyone can have on the web has become. Some news websites have already decided enough is enough. The Independent led the way in May this year and said on independent.co.uk the free speech free-for-all for anonymous posters was to end. It claimed: “Websites have been encouraging cowardice. They allow users to hide behind virtual anonymity to make hasty, ill-researched and often intemperate comments regardless of any consideration for personal hurt or corporate damage.”

Abuse, bigotry and libellous comments that would never be tolerated on the letters page of a newspaper or magazine are the downside of anonymous postings. But there is an upside which I discovered while doing a piece on the issue of anonymous postings for InPublishing magazine.

Talking to online editors of regional newspapers, B2B magazines and industry websites brought home to me how important anonymous postings can be in generating stories as well as fleshing them out with authentic comments from insiders. For the local press some of the most valuable comments are left anonymously, such as tip-offs, comments by staff at big employers or local authorities who can’t give their names without risking their jobs.

Some professionals, such as social workers, have it in their contracts that they must not speak to the press. They have to post anonymously when going on the website of B2B magazines covering their sector.

One of the good things about industry websites is that they can put up a story based on an anodyne press release about the “mutually agreed” departure of a managing director only for the real story to come out in the comments made by anonymous posters working for the company.

While mainstream news sites are looking at ways to cut out nasty anonymous postings, it is the media closest to its readers, such as the local press, B2B magazines and industry websites which see the real value in them for generating content and whistleblowing.

We should not let the abusive bigots kill the conversation.

Stephen Glover: 'Those who put the boot into columnists online should give their real names'

Stephen Glover in the Independent today joins those arguing in favour of ending anonymity for commenters on news websites.
Glover writes: "The internet is supposed to be the great engine of democratic expression. It has broken the old stranglehold of the Press and enables everyone to have a say. Anybody with a view, and the ability to put it into words, can become a blogger, or post comments in response to an article or blog.
He adds: "It is good that columnists should be examined, and responses are sometimes enlightening. There is, however, a downside to free-for-all debate. Some commenters resort easily to crude abuse, either against the columnist or a fellow commenter, without disclosing their identity. Under the cloak of anonymity, and in the certain knowledge that there can be no comeback, a few are eager to deliver insults and put the boot in. Extreme comments are supposed to be removed by newspaper websites, but a lot of colourful stuff remains.
"Admittedly no one has to read this stuff. But why do newspapers publish it? Surely it is a civilised principle that if you are going to attack a writer or other commenter you should avoid extreme abuse and, perhaps more important still, write under your own name...Parts of newspaper websites have become alternative reality playgrounds where people throw rocks at one another from behind bushes. They can be coarse and intolerant places.
"Newspapers have allowed what should be a civilised forum for debate to turn on occasion into unedifying rough houses. Sometimes things can turn seriously nasty, as when commenters made threats against the Daily Mail's Jan Moir after she had written what they deemed a homophobic article.
"Editors seem increasingly to want their columnists to make a stir, and are liable to judge the success of an article by the number of postings it receives. In fact it is easy to create a rumpus. A brilliantly argued and informative political column might attract few comments, and be no worse for that.
"You can't outlaw abuse, but I believe that a basic requirement of having a posting accepted – as it would be of having a letter published in a newspaper – should be to supply a real name."

• In May, The Independent's online editor Martin King explained why the paper was stopping anonymous postings on its site. He claimed : "Websites have been encouraging cowardice. They allow users to hide behind virtual anonymity to make hasty, ill-researched and often intemperate comments regardless of any consideration for personal hurt or corporate damage."

'Inside the mind of the anonymous online poster'

Boston Globe Magazine journalist Neil Swidey has written an article Inside the mind of the anonymous online poster which looks at the issues surrounding abusive postings and whether people should only be able to comment on news websites if they give their real names.
The starting point for the article is the amount of abusive postings the Globe received after reporting that President Obama's aunt had been allowed to stay in the US.
Swidey writes: "The raging commentary on Obama’s aunt is a microcosm of the thorny problem many websites are grappling with right now over what to do with anonymous comments...Given their anonymous nature and anything-goes ethos, these forums can sometimes feel as ungovernable as the tribal lands of Pakistan."
He adds: "Newspapers find themselves in a strange position. People wanting to have a letter to the editor printed in the paper have long been required to provide their name, address, and a daytime phone number. Yet on the websites owned by these same newspapers, all it usually takes to be handed a perpetual soapbox is an active e-mail address."
Swidey notes: "Many media heavyweights, from The Washington Post to The Huffington Post, have begun to modify their policies. The goal is to take the playground back from anonymous bullies and give greater weight to those willing to offer, in addition to strong views, their real names."
For the article, Swidey tracks down and interviews some of the Globe's frequent anonymous posters like Xenophonic who "has no wife, no children, and a job requiring just 20 hours a week. He doesn’t follow sports, doesn’t hang out at bars or go on many trips beyond the occasional visit to play the slots at Twin River, and isn’t involved in any organizations to speak of. But he is extremely active in his community. It just happens to be one that only exists online."
There is also Yoshimi25, who has attracted ugly anti-Asian slurs online, but turns out to be a blue-eyed Irish-American named Kelly.
The article refers to a plan by new-media strategist Steve Yelvington who is working with Morris Publishing Group, and pushing the Morris sites to insist on collecting (but not publishing) real names and street addresses for everyone who comments, yet allow users to continue to post under pseudonyms.
But Swidey concludes: "While news organizations debate scrapping anonymity, the ground may be shifting beneath them. With all of our identifying information getting sliced, diced, and sold, by everyone from credit card companies to Facebook, is there really such a thing as the anonymous Web anymore? Consider this demonstration from the late ’90s by Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor Latanya Sweeney. She took three commonly available data points: sex (male), ZIP code (02138), and date of birth (July 31, 1945). Those seemingly anonymous attributes could have described lots of people, right? Actually, no. She proved they could belong to just one person: former governor William Weld. She tells me that 87 percent of Americans can now be identified with just these three data points. Maybe the best approach to getting people to behave better online is just reminding them how easy it is to figure out who they really are."

* I recently did a piece on moves by the Independent and The Times' to stop anonymous postings for InPublishing:Ending the online free speech free-for-all