Earlier this week, my local paper had an article that they would no longer allow anonymous posting on their web site. Here is the article. Basically, their reasoning was that anonymity helped people say things that were rather unpleasant, attack other people or groups, or say things that they would not say openly any where else. Their hope is that by having the commentator's name posted, that the comments and following discussions will be more civil. The commentators are split on this decision. Some are happy with the change, while others feel that they are now being censored or denied their freedom of speech. While using Facebook commenting tool does help keep most people for posting anonymously, a fake Facebook account can be made. Though that does break Facebook rules, it would not prevent someone from doing so.
I do not think that Archives have this kind of problem. But it something to think about. Does anonymity allow us to carry on a better discussion with someone that has a differing opinion? Or do the owners of the web sites have to take the role of the parent and force us to be nice to each other?
I have to say that when postings are checked, it makes for more civil discussions. The NYTimes checks their comments so it's easy to read through them. NPR on the other had allows (or at least they used to) anything to be posted and I find the discussions can get way, way off track. So for more focused and meaningful discussions, I find "censoring" appropriate.
ReplyDelete