Leaving a Comment? That'll Be 99 Cents, and Your Name 377
netbuzz writes "Anxious to lift a ban on comments brought about by incessant trolling and anonymous slander, a Massachusetts newspaper has begun requiring two things of online readers who want to leave their thoughts on stories: a one-time fee of 99 cents and a willingness to use their real names. Says the publisher: 'This is a necessary step, in my opinion, if The Attleboro (MA) Sun Chronicle is going to continue to provide a forum for comments on our websites.'"
if its a small town paper (Score:4, Interesting)
you aren't dealing with sophisticated tor and proxy users and ip spoofing, you're dealing with the local technically barely literate cranks. so just enforce ip bans. or even cookies. these guys are sitting at home on one computer, not even in a coffee shop. and you're probably only dealing with 12-24 committed griefers only, so its not an endless problem
finally, i was always a fan of the rubber room (there may be a better term for this technique):
once you've flagged the committed griefer, make it so his comments only appear to him. oftentimes these hacks will comment freely and continually for months on end, completely oblivious to the fact that no one is reading their comments except themselves
Re:Dept of Troll Prevention.... (Score:1, Interesting)
1) Time - It takes time to moderate forums /.)
2) Money - Usually, you have to pay a trusted associate to moderate your forums (or build trust like
3) PR - Filtering comments becomes a grey area, where one bad choice can heap on bad PR for a company
4) This IS a scheme to do just that, or let people J&SB them into being less stupid
5) Listen to Yourself [xkcd.com]
Re:Dept of Troll Prevention.... (Score:5, Interesting)
What system would that be, homeslice? The moderation only works on posts that are of the generic-troll or meme-troll variety -- like "HOT GRITS" or "OBAMA is a N1&&3r" or somesuch. When trolls troll from a point of view, then it becomes much more subjective. Meta-moderation is very much a crapshoot and not evenly applied.
Obviously slashdot has its own cultural norms and when you come here you simply have to be aware that there's going to be some verbal abuse. A newspaper, on the other hand, doesn't really want that and doesn't want to dedicate its services and infrastructure to hosting shouting matches. The draw for a newspaper is the story, not the argument itself; this is where a newspaper and a forum are different. Any conversation on the article should facilitate understanding, perspectives, and critique of the article, and not be a sort of vanity contest.
Boston.com did a very interesting article recently on the average anonymous poster [boston.com]. And to be honest, I don't see why these people spout off about half the crap they do. They just want attention, and it isn't a newspapers job to host vanity projects.
Re:Good Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
so geolocate the commentors' ip address (Score:2, Interesting)
if they aren't in eastern MA or RI, deny them the ability to comment
yes, the attleboro expat in san francisco will be severely saddened at being unable to comment on a story from back home
but that sounds like a fair trade off for effectively blocking a stumbleupon or 4chan trollpocalypse
Of course they have the Right to do this, but ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Naturally, the newspaper in question has a right to do this, and especially if they are a small paper they may feel they don't have the resources available to consistently moderate user comments. Traditionally, newspapers confirmed the identity of people who wrote letters to the editor - which also is helpful in eliminating spoofing.
However, there is certainly a downside. Sometimes, the things that most need to be said require anonymity. When the prevailing dogma - whether secular or religious - precludes the truth, those who wish to speak the truth must take steps to protect themselves. Slashdot has found a pretty good way of reducing the impact of trolls while both preserving anonymity and allowing the use of pseudonyms that allow regular posters to develop a good reputation without revealing their true identity.
I hope and expect that most online media will follow Slashdot's example, rather than the example of the Sun Chronicle.
Re:Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a one-time registration... Plus, someone willing to spend hours and hours scouring online news sites and comment forums to leave little gems of "hah they got what they deserved" or "it's [insert x politicians name] fault" would probably be willing to part with a few dollars here and there to get their fix, for god's sake if every person who posted "the economy is in the shitter and it's so-and-so's fault" would just *get a job* we probably wouldn't have a recession any more to complain about. On second thought, it makes perfect sense. *cries*
The real problem I see if this catches on is that these online forums will become even more stratified; people will only bothering signing up and posting where they agree with everyone else (in case they didn't take this step already) since the truth of the day in news forums is determined by whomever has the larger/more persistent mob.
If you thought the blogosphere (or forumsphere) couldn't get more partisan and petty... you aint seen nothin yet!
Re:Dept of Troll Prevention.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
In the case of newspaper article comments I'm not sure a real name is a bad idea.
I've seen (and left) a few in a local paper that were terribly insensitive--not always wrong, exactly, but when your grandma drives into a car and everyone is killed--the local paper, read by the family, might not be the best place to debate the merits of/problems associated with DWO.
I've seen articles about parental negligence, a 20 year old drowning because he didn't wear his life jacket, etc. with some very insensitive finger pointing.
I'm not saying the debate is wrong, but when you lose your kid to some thing like this, you don't need to read about how stupid he was not wearing a life vest--it needs to be debated but not right there (Plus, trust me, all those who knew the kid will be wearing life vests in the future).
So having a real name associated won't (and shouldn't) stop people from posting their opinions, but it might help them remember that they are communicating with real human beings with feelings and not throwing a comment into some abstract internet debate.
Re:Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dept of Troll Prevention.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Slashdot's moderation system works because it has a huge army of visitors that can be tapped for mod duties. Most newspaper websites have nowhere near enough visitors to do this
This is a fair observation, but only to a point.
When I read Slashdot, I do so with the mod filters off as I want access to everything. But I also know how to use my mouse wheel. I really don't understand why people are so bothered by graffiti. Well, no, let me rephrase that: I DO understand. I just don't respect it.
In any case, I think Slashcode or something similar would vastly improve the community interaction on any newspaper site. That's the solution; not trying to hide from people you find offensive. The moderation system here is only interesting to me in terms of gauging popular opinion; I don't use it to hide from the big, bad world of crazy people and offensive ideas. I'm not a coward.
And that should make people feel good! -Even if your comment is blasted down to -1, I'll still give it a look because I know that this sometimes means you had an excellent point which people found upsetting because they carry too much psychological baggage. I want to hear that point! If you're trying to waste my time, then all you'll get is a few microseconds before I'm gone.
Newspapers trying to protect readers from reality are acting in a very hypercritical manner. They're supposed to inform people, not shelter them and only feed them prescribed ideas.
And guess what? Trolls are part of the world. Best to give people the ability to leapfrog them and get on with life rather than pretend they aren't there.
-FL
Re:I was gonna flame you, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
My brother wrote a letter to the editor that expressed some controversial views. About few years later, he decided to run for the state senate -- his letter to the editor was repeatedly raised by the opposition, so letters to the editor can show up -- but in the case of job reviews and suchlike, it is clear that the additional expense will discourage this.
However, search engines may well be indexing the letter to the editor you write and unless you have it published with "Name withheld by request", you run smack into the same situation. Nothing is private from someone someone sufficiently motivated to find it out.
Yes, I do enjoy snacking on kittens - Why do you ask?
Re:Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
they should moderate their comments
And that won't cost the paper money?
not allow them at all
Nice solution there genius.
I was really confused for a second until I realized you were calling the newspapers assholes instead of the assholes that they are trying to prevent cluttering up their comment boards.
I hate reading comments in most papers (and slashdot) where anonymous trolls spew the worst rhetoric just to get a rise out of people. (BTW, good job here, it worked on me) If your bitching about a one-time .99 cent fee, then you need to get off the internet because of the electricity cost.
I hope their plan works and others follow suit.
Paying to comment (Score:3, Interesting)