CBC to Require Real Names for Comments Section

[thedigitaldoctor]

Source Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cbc-news-online-commenting-no-pseudonyms-1.3496467

 

CBC says they're going to require all commenters to use their real names, but they don't know how their going to do that:

Quote

Bedard said it is too early to say what kind of measures CBC might consider to try to ensure people are not using fake names.

And it's also just the beginning:

Quote

She noted that banning the use of pseudonyms is "really just a first step" in fixing the issue of hateful comments online and that CBC will be looking at other measures...

 

 

Personally I put this right up there with Trump trying to shut down the internet.  Good luck with that bro...

 

Some questions to start discussion:

1 - Are their reasons for attempting this...reasonable?

2 - Do you think they'll attempt to implement a purely technological solution, or a community (ie community mods, paid mods, etc) one?

3 - If comments are going to be curated/moderated/filtered, is there any point to having comments at all?

4 - As a government-funded entity, does this potentially have "free-speech" issues?

[Bittenfleax]

Hmmm, I don't think i'm the only one here saying that others won't like it.   And I guess that will be really hard to implement because how will they know who each person is?! I guess it is probably some CEO's decision by someone who does not have a clue about things such as this.

 

Like when Government leaders/peers try to dictate what is good for us in the technology world when they don't know what they're on about and they only do/say it because one other source said so and they are gullible to believe it and pass it as their own decision so they don't look stupid, then it back fires. 

 

 

[trey11230]

I wonder if they got the idea from The Newsroom.

[dalekphalm]

10 minutes ago, thedigitaldoctor said:

Source Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cbc-news-online-commenting-no-pseudonyms-1.3496467

 

CBC says they're going to require all commenters to use their real names, but they don't know how their going to do that:

And it's also just the beginning:

 

 

Personally I put this right up there with Trump trying to shut down the internet.  Good luck with that bro...

 

Some questions to start discussion:

1 - Are their reasons for attempting this...reasonable?

2 - Do you think they'll attempt to implement a purely technological solution, or a community (ie community mods, paid mods, etc) one?

3 - If comments are going to be curated/moderated/filtered, is there any point to having comments at all?

4 - As a government-funded entity, does this potentially have "free-speech" issues?

I imagine they'll use some sort of authentication with Facebook, as a starter. But they will not be able to 100% curtail anonymous comments, unless they implement a forced Government ID Check (Unlikely).

 

1. Their reasons for wanting this are reasonable enough - CBC comments have been plagued with shitposting and nasty hateful comments. I guess their mods can't keep up with it.

2. I think it will be a combination of technology + mods. The mods will mostly just be there to delete posts that violate their posting guidelines.

3. Yes. Why would you even mention this? You're posting on a forum RIGHT NOW that "curates/moderates/filters" content. Is there any point to comment at all on LTT? Yes of course. CBC as an organization has the right to set limits on what it deems acceptable comments. You don't have to agree to those limits. And you don't have to post there either.

4. It might, but CBC isn't entirely funded by the Government. They do have some private funding via their own investments, plus service/subscription fees, etc. It's still a Crown Corporation though, meaning any "Free Speech" issues would still apply.

 

That would have to be tested in court though. Someone would have to prove that what CBC is doing is illegal.

 

How I feel about this: I don't agree with their decision, but I feel like it's their decision to make. Anonymity on the internet is DEFINITELY a mixed bag. On one hand, it enables people to say their opinions without fear of reprisals. On the other hand, it allows people to spread hate and bigotry, and to incite violence and threats with the same lack fo fear of reprisals.

 

I think that anonymity should be protected though, since if I disagree with the status quo, eg: let's say I think mainstream feminists are degrading men's rights, then SJW's and neo-extreme-feminists will try and destroy me. It's happened before, where they have literally doxxed an MRA, and gotten them fired, etc, and got away without any punishment.

 

But on the other side, I could anonymously spew disgusting shit like anti-semetic/anti-muslim comments, I could be racist, etc, and get away with that.

[Bittenfleax]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I imagine they'll use some sort of authentication with Facebook, as a starter. But they will not be able to 100% curtail anonymous comments, unless they implement a forced Government ID Check (Unlikely).

That's a good idea. Although might put some people off because I never link anything with my Facebook but then again it will put off the shit-posters and if someone really wanted to say their point they would go through the hassle I guess. And I am not everyone and others might not mind.

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

29 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I imagine they'll use some sort of authentication with Facebook, as a starter. But they will not be able to 100% curtail anonymous comments, unless they implement a forced Government ID Check (Unlikely).

I'm pretty sure that as our Internet becomes more integrated with society, so will accountability as well.

 

I'm also guessing that in the future, modems will become the next car, both legally and practically.

 

Which brings me to a more serious question: If drone owners are now being directly accountable for the hardware they own (licensing, possibly training, etc), why hasn't it happened to general computers yet? Laws are still physically imposed on material objects, no matter how digitally capable it is. I would have expected it in the 90's (thank god it didn't happen).

[Warcony]

If anyone has ventured into the comments section of an article posted on CBC you'd understand why they want to do this. I suspect that it's a very small portion of commenters that are responsible for all the crap posted, but as usual it only takes a few to ruin something.

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

Anyone remember the over 9000 incident with Oprah:http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/over-9000-penises

[thedigitaldoctor]

39 minutes ago, FPSwithaWacomTablet said:

*snip*

If drone owners are now being directly accountable for the hardware they own (licensing, possibly training, etc)

My comment on this is going to be OT, but I'd still like to chase this particular squirrel...

 

There is currently no national UAV (drone) hardware licensing here in Canada, and no training standards.  There are rules, but there is almost no enforcement.  Practically speaking, there is nothing to actually stop people from purchasing and flying anonymously.  Our local NAV Canada office (Edmonton) is trying to get all operators within their jurisdiction to register their hardware with them, but most (even the professionals) are ignoring them.  Enforcement is non-existent.

 

Like I said, OT, but I feel better now having expressed myself

[Katorice]

45 minutes ago, FPSwithaWacomTablet said:

Anyone remember the over 9000 incident with Oprah:http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/over-9000-penises

This is a perfect example. People trying to control comment sections don't even know how comment sections work. or how tenacious trolls can be.

Maybe hire mods that know how the internet behaves? nahhh lets try the expensive way first and watch it fail like Google+!

 

how did that work for them? how did "real names" work for facebook? (catfish alert) this will be a waste of resource, imo.

[thedigitaldoctor]

[dragosudeki]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

-snip-

In this scenario, I think it would be best to just disable the comments altogether. I doubt anything productive comes from the comments section anyway.

[Monkey Dust]

Moderating the comments section of popular news website must take up quite a lot of time, especially if all or most stories are open to comments, which carries a cost. Given how many news providers are struggling to break even online, I can see why they would want to make comments easier, and therefore cheaper, to moderate.

 

 

[Warcony]

16 minutes ago, dragosudeki said:

In this scenario, I think it would be best to just disable the comments altogether. I doubt anything productive comes from the comments section anyway.

CBC already tried disabling comments on articles related to certain topics, but I heard there was backlash from the general public that the Harper government was trying to squash people's "freedom of speech."

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

Pretty sure reddit is always an option for comments.. no matter how circlejerk it always seems

[PlayStation 2]

Good thing Dan Castellaneta's already a real name.

[AshleyAshes]

On 18/03/2016 at 10:57 AM, thedigitaldoctor said:

4 - As a government-funded entity, does this potentially have "free-speech" issues?

The CBC as a crown corporation is government funded but it is not considered a branch of the Government of Canada, as such no aspect of The Charter of Rights And Freedoms applies to the CBC.

 

On 18/03/2016 at 1:53 PM, Warcony said:

CBC already tried disabling comments on articles related to certain topics, but I heard there was backlash from the general public that the Harper government was trying to squash people's "freedom of speech."

This isn't new to the CBC.  You'll find that comments are turned off on a good number of articles on any site from CBC to Fox News to CNN.  In fact, CNN seems to have more articles without comments enabled than those with it enabled.  To put it simply, a lot of news agencies have little to no interest in having their website spammed with angry bullshit sparked by certain topics so they are selective about which posts get comments or not.

 

The CBC is just trying to make it so that if you use their little part of the internet to scream 'CUNT CUNT CUNT!', that maybe your real name should be attached to those words and maybe you'll reconsider saying it or at least the all caps should this happen.

[Orangeator]

Well... I don't shit post and when I comment on news sites and most sites in general I do use my real legal name. I have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me. However I have seen a lot of "insensitive" postings on news sites before so I can understand why they would want to do this. They should call it like a civil policy or something like that, meaning keep it civil or be banned from commenting. However I do not know how they will keep up with all those comments so they might need to just disable comments on certain articles, such as hate crime stories... etc

[dalekphalm]

51 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

Well... I don't shit post and when I comment on news sites and most sites in general I do use my real legal name. I have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me. However I have seen a lot of "insensitive" postings on news sites before so I can understand why they would want to do this. They should call it like a civil policy or something like that, meaning keep it civil or be banned from commenting. However I do not know how they will keep up with all those comments so they might need to just disable comments on certain articles, such as hate crime stories... etc

While I agree in the sense that I would never post anything I'd be afraid of saying in person, the argument "I have nothing to hide" is a flawed one. There are a number of instances where you don't have anything to hide, but you're afraid of being the target of prejudices or attacks - eg: You're a Muslim, commenting on a story about an alleged terrorist bomber. Let's say you think he's innocent, because he was charged under flawed evidence via racial profiling. Many of the commentators might then decide you're also a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer, and will publicly shame you for your comments.

[Beskamir]

I guess nobody was really anonymous to begin with but I'm still a bit concerned about the online "anonymity" ramifications that this decision may have. Since for now at least it requires a bit of effort for people to figure out who someone is in real life; but with an actual name, making that connection will be a lot easier.

[Lethal Seraph]

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

[Katorice]

9 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

To put it simply, a lot of news agencies have little to no interest in having their website spammed with angry bullshit sparked by certain topics so they are selective about which posts get comments or not.

with titles like the ones these news organizations put out(click bate), I'm not surprised all they attract is angry people with angry comments.

maybe they should be selective about what news they put out and how they put it out. of course, this is hard so.. easy way; shut the comments off. gah.

[Lewellyn]

Well I personally feel like real verified names should be required to post on LTT. Obviously anyone who disagrees is just a young anarchist teen who doesn't understand how the world works.

[ShadowDeity]

This is so they can stop any right-wingers from posting any 'hate-speech' that goes against their left-wing agenda. 

[Trik'Stari]

5 hours ago, ShadowDeity said:

This is so they can stop any right-wingers from posting any 'hate-speech' that goes against their left-wing agenda. 

Agreed.

 

Anonymity can be abused, but it's necessary in order to have healthy dissent and discussion. Otherwise it becomes far too easy for the dominant party, which is currently the left, to use someones political beliefs to shame them or otherwise negatively effect their life.