Sunday, September 09, 2007
Bye bye, anonymous comments.
Once again, I had enabled anonymous comments, hoping against hope that some commenters were capable of at least a modicum of civility and reasonable dialogue. And, once again, reality reaches over to slap me soundly across the face.
So it's off with anonymous comments yet again. If you have something to say, all you need to do is register for whatever arbitrary handle you want with Blogger and you're good to go. And if that somehow strikes you as "censorship," well, you're way too stupid to be commenting on anyone's blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Damn. And here I thought up another good one.
CC says,
And if that somehow strikes you as "censorship," well, you're way too stupid to be commenting on anyone's blog.
Uhhh ... it's censorship, buddy. It may be justifiable censorship but it's still censorship. It's not me who's stupid. :-)
We've had this discussion before, Larry, and I've already explained why anonymous comments can cause problems, and you can easily see the first one. Childish trolls will simply keep posting vacuous, inane comments to the point where no one even wants to read the comments anymore.
And the second obvious problem is that, given enough anonymous commenters, it becomes impossible to keep track of which anonymous commenter someone is responding to.
Registering for a Blogger handle is easy, it's fast and it's free, and it's all I require to give someone free and unfettered access to my comments section. If that somehow strikes you as censorship, I can only hope that the trolls don't eventually end up at your place and teach you the same hard lesson I've learned.
"it's censorship, buddy."
uh....
KEvron
If it's censorship Larry, than you preventing me from coming into your living room and telling what I think is censorship as well.
Words have generally-accepted definitions, you know. Censorship is the the prevention of legitimate expression when you have the right to express it; in certain situations or venues or within specific legal orders, you don't have that right.
"Uhhh ... it's censorship, buddy."
Tsk tsk...and you're a teacher, too, Larry. Oh, well, at least you're not an English teacher. That would be embarassing for you! Imagine an English teacher not knowing that "self-immolation" is a redundancy!
It’s only “censorship” in the most elastic definition of that word.
I’ve wrestled with the problem on several occasions. It’s curious why some people choose to comment that way (they’re not all negative), but they do for whatever reason, so you take the bad with the good. When they become disruptive or excessively belligerent it can be annoying however.
CC says,
We've had this discussion before, Larry, and I've already explained why anonymous comments can cause problems ...
Yes, I understand that. But there was no reason to say that anyone who thinks this isn't censorship is stupid. That's the point I was addressing.
BTW, how's the new policy working? Judging by some of the comments on this thread, it's not all that successful at eliminating idiots. :-)
ti-guy (whoever that is) says,
If it's censorship Larry, than you preventing me from coming into your living room and telling what I think is censorship as well.
You have a strange way of thinking.
There are (at least) two ways of running a blog. You can let everyone post comments whenever they want or you can restrict commenters in various ways. As soon as you impose restrictions on which type of reader can post comments, you are engaging in censorship.
Please note that censorship isn't always bad. I wasn't criticizing CC's decision—although I did point out the hypocrisy of insisting on anonymity as a poster but not allowing commenters to be anonymous. Perhaps that's what confused you?
But, Larry, I'm not anonymous, I'm pseudonymous -- there's a difference. I may not use my real name, but I'm easily identifiable in the blogosphere by my pseudonym of "Canadian Cynic."
And, at this point, all I require is that anyone who wants to comment also get a pseudonym of some kind.
So, please, enough with the nonsense about "hypocrisy." That's a bogus accusation and you should know better.
As soon as you impose restrictions on which type of reader can post comments, you are engaging in censorship.
I see your confusion; you think the absence of censorship equates to free expression. But that's not the case. There is no restriction on freedom of expression here (generally, excepting the deletion of an egregious troll comment now and again). You just can't do it using the confusing "anonymous" persona.
I have long felt that the term "censorship" should be reserved for situations where government arbitrarily limits the speech of an individual.
If I don't allow you to write obscenities on the wall of my house, or post comments to my blog, or if I refuse to publish your letter in the newspaper that I own or edit, that's not "censorship," that's me exercising my perfectly reasonable right to choose what ideas are expressed in a medium that I own, operate, or control.
If you wish to express your ideas you have an equal right to buy or build your own fence, blog, or newspaper, and present whatever you choose without my interference.
That is the strength of the Internet, and why it represents such a dramatic improvement from days when the only options for spreading dissenting ideas were mimeograph or photocopying.
The question anonymity is pretty much a red herring.
Barry:
I would quibble with part of your definition of censorship; specifically, this part:
"If I don't allow you to write obscenities on the wall of my house, or post comments to my blog, or if I refuse to publish your letter in the newspaper that I own or edit, that's not "censorship," that's me exercising my perfectly reasonable right to choose what ideas are expressed in a medium that I own, operate, or control.
If you wish to express your ideas you have an equal right to buy or build your own fence, blog, or newspaper, and present whatever you choose without my interference."
Your point might hold with respect to fences or blogs, but not with newspapers. In many places, there is only one neswpaper, which might represent the only way to get one's opinions out, by way of perhaps letters to the editor. However, if that paper's editor selectively prints only those letters that match his ideology, I would contend that that is censorship.
The point of a letters page is to allow a genuine cross-section of public opinion and if, as the editor, you make sure that doesn't happen, that's pretty much the very definition of censorship. And telling someone that, if they don't like it, they can go start their own paper really isn't a satisfying defense. In fact, that's one of the reasons most newspapers have an ombudsman -- so you have some recourse if you feel you're being treated unfairly.
So the rest of your comment is valid, but the reference to newspapers doesn't quite work.
Post a Comment