Recently I had a discussion with the folks at Patch over my concerns how anonymous individuals hide behind their made up names and say irresponsible things. My concern is what that is doing to our community as well as communities all over this country on Patch.com. Those who use anonymous names feel empowered to say almost anything they want with out fear of any real retribution. This, even within a policy of Terms of Service. But they certainly wouldn't say those things if they were face to face with someone.
Coincidently, I just came across today a news item about some Facebook and Instagram users having had their accounts pulled from them until they provide a copy of government issued identification such as a U.S. Issued Passport, State Drivers License or other recognized form of identification.
I personally believe this is a good step in making people act online like they would in person. I share this here so not only the community can be informed of this but also the management at Patch as well, if they weren't aware already. It is time we not let slide the irresponsible and in some cases slanderous ways of some people. Having a policy which does away with the concept of anonymous or fake users would, in my opinion, help us create a more inviting online community.
I have heard some people say they use fake names for safety reasons. My response is if you do not say irresponsible things you will not need to fear from people. It is when you make threats or get people really upset that some might react with violence or the treat of violence. Treat people like you would like to be treated and that problem goes away.
To document the Facebook and Instagram Terms of Service Policy change, I share the following article:
I hope Patch takes this example seriously with the new roll out of Patch 2.0 which has been talked about being released sometime in 2013.
Cheers
Years ago everyone said Mr. Webster, now it is Hershal, in between it was Dude. Here I used my full real name, if I were to do it again I would go with Dude. Otis would be cool too. W. C. Fields’ actual name was William Claude Dukenfield. He wrote many of his movies as other people, including Charles Bogle, Mahatma Kane Jeeves, and Otis Criblecoblis. You probably wouldn’t be interested in watching Norma Jean Baker, Archibald Leach, or Karen Johnson perform, but you might change your mind if you heard the names Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant, or Whoopi Goldberg.
And Heather, I appreciate the characterization you gave about our discourse earlier. I actually have to tell you I agree that the interchange was thoughtful. (shhhhh, don't tell CowDung)
I believe allowing screen names invites many that would otherwise refuse to offer their opinion. While it is true that a few will be repugnant when they can hide behind a screen name, on both sides, the moderators can certainly edit that behavior. If society were civil there wouldn't be a reason to want anonymity ... any can see that we live in a world that has just enough incivility to stifle many publicly, and that is the real shame. True, that many that are comfortable, or find honor, in using their name and are confident ... which carries some weight ... but it hardly diminishes those unwilling to take that risk. Their are other issues that cause some to be anonymous ... reasons that none have touched on, suffice to say that some are overlooking realities due to their ignorance, which is not their fault. I believe the input of all can be measured regardless the name ... I think Rees is missing that possibility ... or he hopes to stifle opposition.
You characterize my comments as "demanding the use of your "real" name". Then you characterize that Brian Dey address the possibility of physical harm while you characterize my not commenting when you said that I "conveniently never addressed after Brian offered personal examples." Talk about spin and taking out of context. Here are direct quotes from Brian Dey: Brian Dey 6:43 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 "But in the end, in my personal view, If I'm going to put it out there, I should assume the risk." Brian Dey 4:04 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013 "I will always use my given name because that is who I am and what I choose to do." What on earth should I address after those conclusions? He continues to use his real name. I started this Blog to point out that some very large social media companies are starting to demand proof of who you are. I am in no position to demand anything but I did talk to a Patch representative about my views that anonymous content hurts community values. And as we learned in this thread from Heather in Caledonia, an article in the Smithsonian "saw anonymity as a poison seed. The way it didn't hide, but, in fact, brandished the ugliness of human nature beneath the anonymous screen name masks an enabling and foreshadowing of mob rule, not a growth of democracy, but an accretion of tribalism." Shouldn't that be enough? Give me a break.
______________________ |XXXXXXX|=============| |XXXXXXX|=============| |XXXXXXX|=============| |=====================| |=====================| |=====================| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
☭ ☭ - punctuation errors
I am being disenfranchised.
If they require I.D. to control content, is that constitutional? Or could they also become responsible for the content?
True, Brian is willing to continue exposing himself, his family, and his neighbors to risks - many are not. He specifically cited liberal thuggery he was subjected to ... @Brian "After I wrote an article on the recalls and the two year old mentality of the blue fisters, my mailbox was blown up. I had the lugs on one of my trucks loosened and two weeks later, the same happened to another one of my vehicles." ... you certainly have the right to overlook what he shared, but since this is your blog, I thought you might consider the grave truth ... thuggery exists, and many thugs will try to do you harm if you disagree with them. You chose to avail yourself comments that supported your position, and ignored what did not ... I wish you well on your endeavor - but if you are claiming you are being objective, I respectfully disagree.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ideas-innovations/What-Turned-Jaron-Lanier-Against-the-Web-183832741.html
It's that last part that I fear. Generally speaking we all agree that taking someone to a tree to lynch by hanging is grossly wrong. But in our past, that occurred by mob rule. I did a careful dictionary lookup: accretion: growth in size or extent. tribalism: a strong loyalty to one's own tribe, party, or group. party? group? Look at what we have in todays politics. Given the actions of our elected legislators as entrenched each political party has become amongst ourselves, it is no wonder people feel fear from retribution. Is that the country we want looking forward? Do we want fear as the basis to how we react? Is that the "United" States of America you want for your children? Is it? Maybe now you can see why I have created this blog. There is a real connection between how we talk amongst ourselves and what actions we ultimately could take part in. If we continue down the current path of fear, the real possibility of lynch mob mentality could come back. We would only then be a step away from seeing it for real. That would certainly be something to fear. I, for one, believe we are all better than that.
Some blogs have "twit filters", used by each reader to filter out those posters who they feel never post anything useful.
Kind of ironic you have a group of people who think people are being disenfranchised because they can't provide ID to vote yet think online social groups like Facebook should do this. What if grandma wants to get on FB to interact with her grandchildren and can't provide the proper ID.