User “lala” asked the following question at the end of David’s post about the anti-Patrick post from the Reilly campaign. I think it is an important enough issue to deserve its own headline. With respect to looking at the IP addresses of people who post comments here, this user asked: “Does everyone have the authority to do this? (Can any user look up other users IP addresses?) How did you acquire this info? thx!”
My response: “Hi Lala. Our site, like virtually all internet sites logs the IP addresses of people who visit (including, for example, yours). Those can then be cross-referenced to a list of registered addresses, making the match to the Reilly Campaign, Verizon, etc. At the moment, only David, Charley and I and our web hosting service provider have access to this information. We’ve discussed making this information available to all of our users, so that everyone can see where everyone else is coming from, but have decided not to do that for the time being. What do you think we should do?”
We’d like to hear what you all think too. Personally, I’d be very happy to end anonymous comments entirely at BMG. I think people should stand behind what they write; I think anonymous comments have largely destroyed the usefulness of sites like dailykos as a place to discuss ideas; and I predict that discourse on this site, which has already started to suffer as traffic has increased, will decline further as the number of users grows (which I think it will, as the elections approach). I grant that anonymous comments encourage commenting in general, and that they may free people to gossip, but I think the costs outweigh the benefits for a site like this one. There are a number of services that will allow us to verify user identities at registration, if we did decide to go down this route. Reading, of course, would always be anonymous.
Look: it’s up to readers to decide on how much salt they should take any given post. If it comes from a registered user who posts good information regularly, than their next post has “street cred”. If it’s anon, than it doesn’t.
<
p>
Posting IPs and not allowing anon posting is problematic, because it silences part of the community. Exactly why a person wants to post anon (or without their IP on public display) is not the concern. While this site is private property and not subject to free speech laws, I believe it will remain a top notch site if it does in fact stand on the broadest side of free speech, which includes allowing anonymous posting and hiding IPs from the general public.
<
p>
Keep checking IPs for campaign postings et al, but don’t publish them. Let people post anon; they may have reasons for keeping their name under wraps.
<
p>
And to the readers: unless you’ve got a good reason, take each post with exactly one grain of salt or less.
I’m not sure what I think about anonymous comments, I have no idea…it’s muddy water…Thanks though for answering my question! I just didnt know if this info was currently open to everyone or just you guys! Definitely worth debating!
Bob,
<
p>
You say only you, David and Charley can see the registered addresses of registered users, but everyone can click on the SiteMeter link at the bottom of each page and get some fairly specific details about who is viewing the site. A bit more sleuthing allows one to match comment posting times with site visit times, and then one can narrow down even more. I think the difficulty with that, though, is that sometimes an IP address/ISP lists the town where the server is as opposed to where the user is, so this isn’t foolproof.
<
p>
But my vote would be for anonymity at least of names and email addresses (which I think you guys agree with). Locations are another story. But I don’t think you guys spending time “outing” posters would be very productive because of the chilling effect it might have on posting. One-off posters/newly registered bomb-throwers can be pretty easily dismissed by the active community here and to the extent a campaign would use those tactics to get a story out would be blunted by that fact.
<
p>
That being said, I think you guys are also revolutionizing the world of political communication here (like with the direct posts by campaigns which you encourage). I think you all would agree that allowing negative bombs to be thrown is an unfortunate, but rational, extension and outcome of the “free speech zone” BMG comprises. It will be interesting to see whether campaigns directly post bombs here to get a discussion going of them. It will further be interesting to see if those discussions are picked up by any reporters covering the race for newspapers or TV – because I am fairly certain they monitor what is going on here a a way of keeping up with things. (Incidentally, it will also be interesting if the Globe and Herald blogs begin to link to you guys and others.)
The sitemeter only keeps the last 100 IPs, and here it’s for the entire SoapBlox network. The chances of you finding a particular IP within the window of time it takes for the 100th visitor is enough of a buffer so that it’s not realistic to track every comment.
<
p>
Plus, if two weeks from now someone finds a comment they don’t like on this site, the IP isn’t saved for posterity.
that’s an important point that I’ll reiterate: the sitemeter icon at the bottom of our screen captures stats for the entire soapblox network (about a dozen different blog), not just BMG. We use statcounter, a different (but similar) service, for our own statistics – statcounter is the source of the weekly traffic reports I’ve been posting lately. But the general public doesn’t have access to our statcounter info.
I was suggesting possibly using user verification services to make sure people stand behind what they say. Some of these services, for example, require a valid credit card number that can be matched to a name. There are also other valid ways of consensually verifying user IDs.
Posting people’s IP addresses on a political discussion board opens up all sorts of problems with potential retaliation. I don’t want to worry that if I post something about Christy Mihos or whoever that a bunch of his minions are going to try to hack into my system.
<
p>
If you want to put up yet another barrier to posting, that’s your business, but I would really caution against making IP addresses public.
… expect a tax audit, or, if posting critical comments about Mumbles Menino, will I be singled out for an aggressive property tax reassessment? This was common in Chicago during the Daily (Sr.) administration.
<
p>
I’d prefer to keep posts anonymous at posters discretion. If dirty tricks are suspected, well, that’s what moderators are for.
i say keep them up.
<
p>
i’ve got anonymous comments on at blog for cambridge, and i think i generally get pretty decent comments back as a response.
<
p>
anonymous comments generally come in two flavors: good comments from people who don’t know how or don’t want to bother registering; and nasty bitchy comments from people afraid to identify themselves. it’s usually quite easy to tell one apart from the other. as for the first type, i think those comments are quite useful. as for the second type, i generally ignore them.
<
p>
but maybe that’s just me.
<
p>
also, i thought dailykos did away with anonymous comments, like, well before the dean campaign ended?
Only requires a valid email address. They don’t have any system in place to make sure people sign their comments with their real names.
we’re all probably nerdy wonks to some degree or another. but not everyone eats and breathes progressive politics all day long (as some people we know do). it’s great to be able kick around ideas within the parameters of a blog. a blog is a forum.
what concerns me most about making identities public is not some underhanded tricks by opponents, but being taken to task about some blog posting, not on the blogsite (the forum) itself, but at the supermarket or a city council meeting or while having drinks with friends etc.
some people would eat that up. but i believe others would rather not have to be ‘in the ring’ wherever they go.
to let the light shine in, will scare away all the political insiders.
<
p>
I like stomv’s thoughts, we’re really in a place where street cred is established through multiple postings. your word is good or it isn’t.
<
p>
BMG is struggling with what every good reporter struggles with — do you name sources, or do you let them remain anon? By naming sources and insisting on on-the-record statements, you never get burned. But you also never get a lot of good information you would’ve gotten otherwise.
<
p>
Take your favorite reporter to the bar next time you get a chance and ask them about some of the stories they’ve written recently. You’ll get an earful more than was in the story, b/c a lot of the info was on background or off the record.
<
p>
BMG gets its fair share of scoops, and I support the digging and ousting David, Charley and Bob have done on some of the more questionable posts. As editors, much like the editors at Boston mag, it’s their job to ensure quality content. They continue to walk that fine line between an all-out free speech zone and an online news outlet. It’s a tough job — one I’m hardly envious of, but am glad they do it.
<
p>
BMG has to think about what happens to its sources when it shines the light on them. It also needs to realize its sources have agendas.
<
p>
The salt, please.
Addressed this issue at a forum I attended, and blogged, a few weeks ago. Basically, one of the panelists pointed out his reporting doesn’t have much credibility when he can’t ID his sources (viz: Bush is about to launch Armageddon in Iran — who the hell knows). Hersh rested on his track record, which includes My Lai on the one hand, and the JFK diaries forgery on the other. So that doesn’t get one very far. On balance, as I wrote, I think what one gains in gossip one loses in substance. If this is a community, it’s in many ways more like seventh graders passing unsigned notes in the back of class than the Lincoln-Douglas debates. We should strive for the latter, because the best ideas are worth standing behind. Maybe verified IDs as the default, but we allow anonymous posts too. Anyway, everything comes out in the end. If any anonymous poster on BMG drops something really explosive, they will eventually be outed by someone (not necessarily by us, I hasten to add): the internet, as David wrote, provides only an illusion of anonymity. Hmm.
for those willing to dig a bit, my handle is hardly anonymous, but it does allow me to say some things I’d otherwise keep a lid on. It grants me personal freedom, for which I am quite grateful.
<
p>
I agree on the substance bit, too. A good reporter makes the distinction between petty gossip and important information. (Sy Hersh, by the way, was talking about plans to invade Iran as far back as a two years ago, maybe even earlier. He does have good sources, although I think he may be a tad cavalier in his use of those sources, but good sources they are nonetheless.)
<
p>
I’ve noticed that the posts themseleves tend to be well-thought, well-written pieces. Whereas the comments can tend more toward unsubstantiated sniping — particularly the deeper you go in any thread.
Bob wrote:
<
p>
BMG is a truly outstanding forum, but with all due respect, it still has a lot of catching-up to do before attaining the level of quality discussion and debate on dKos.
<
p>
Having said that: on the question of anonymity, one benefit is that it protects people from having their politcal views used against them at the workplace. I can’t imagine that someone employed by, say, Catholic Charities, would want their real name attached to a post lauding the morning-after pill or advocating equal marriage. Nor might a City Hall employee want to use their real name when criticizing Menino, a non-union teacher criticizing unionized colleagues, etc.
<
p>
Of course the folks at DailyKos already discussed this question thoroughly a few years ago… đŸ˜‰
BMG could definitely be better. I’m not saying we’re so great. That’s part of my point. But I don’t actually think there is much substantive discussion at dailyKos any more. It is mostly people who think alike gnashing their teeth and being bitter, and cranks taking potshots. The first recommended diary right now, for example, is a set of graphs that show Kos traffic against some Red sites. This elicits the following comments among others: “reads like a Dick Cheney cardiograph;Ă‚Â Redstate is pathetic these days: I still glance at their front page now and then, but there seems to be absolutely no content of interest. I’d be surprised if they aren’t losing readers;Ă‚Â yep totally useless. I’ll only visit now in a vain attempt to be less partisan.” Here are the first few comments on their #1 article, which is about HIV testing: “Is this why the CDC’s funding is being slashed in the new budget–because they are not toeing the party line? How dare they think of proposing a public health measure that would protect people from a disease that can be transmitted through sexual contact;Ă‚Â Disease control… has a well known liberal bias;Ă‚Â Indeed it does; this would require a federal government that actually believes in crazy concepts like science, disease and preventative care…” Who wants to read rubbish like that? I guess a lot of people based on their traffic, but not me.
To the extent this is relevent to the larger goal of offering the best possible forum for dialogue here at BMG:
<
p>
There is, in fact, a plentitude of high-quality discussion and information-sharing at dkos. The best of it is action-oriented around the many events, candidates and causes of interest to users.
<
p>
DKos also is a vibrant forum in which candidates, elected leaders and activists converse with users. Every Sunday, for example, Congressional candidate <a href="Eric Massa, who resides in a poor rural district, liveblogs on dKos –starting with a timely issue and an update on his campaign against incumbent Republican Randy Kuhl. Through Massa’s regular online discussions, he’s not only engaged people in his campaign, but has increased awareness the larger group of Democratic military veterans who are presently running for the US House and Senate.
Many other candidates and sitting members of congress also post at dKos regularly –from Sen. Russ Feingold to Rep. Louise Slaughter.
I think the dKos diary system, too, is well-structured, and most users respect the guidelines. You actually get some terrificly thoughtful diaries from folks with range of ability and expertise.
<
p>
All these simultaneous, multi-level discussions make for a vibrant and engaging community that deals with substance and facilitates tangible action offline. That’s why dKos gets so much traffic. Sure, you get a good deal of snark and sometimes empty animus, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near dominating the discourse and ethos of the place the way you see in, say, Slate.
<
p>
Let me say for the record that I think BMG also is excellent and getting better all the time. I appreciate your effort and am here to stay!
My question is what we define as anonymous. For instance, most every post on this thread, with the exceptions of Shai Sachs’ post, is connected either to a nickname (like mine) or a first name (like Bob and David, though they’re in a different position due to their role). All of those have a measure of anonymity.
<
p>
So Bob, in what you’re thinking of, what would it look like to “verify user identities”? Would a full name appear with a post? If it would just be verified at registration, would there be a way of ensuring that no one but the site administrators could have a person’s name?
<
p>
This isn’t mean to be smart-assed or rhetorical–I’m honestly not clear what’s defined as “anonymous” here. I haven’t seen any posts attributed simply to “anonymous,” as one does on other blogs or discussions.
As in, you are anonymous to me Mr. Corner because I don’t know what your name is or even if you live in Massachusetts or the USA. To your idea of having verified real names known only to the site administrators, and allowing folks to choose their own handles after they register, that is an intermediate position. (Real names, incidentally, can, as I wrote, be confirmed to the system by users who want to do that in a variety of ways).
is the surest way to make this place a ghost town.
<
p>
Come on — this site just isn’t important enough for me to go through any hoops to prove who I am. After all, I gain nothing from posting, I gain from reading. I contribute to others with my posting.
<
p>
Why should I provide you jerks running this site with any of my personal information? I call you jerks because, well, I have absolutely no reason to trust you.
<
p>
Want to require folks to register so that you can keep bumping off the flamethrowers? Go ahead — I think it’s a waste of time, but go for it. But, if you seriously think that people are going to provide you their real names and identifications, you’re freaking loopy.
Thanks for clarifying, Bob. It sounds like that would be a major shift–I mean, everyone is anonymous here, no? Just as you dont’ know my name, I don’t know if Bob is your real name, or where you live. Adn the same goes for pretty much everyone on here, with the possible exception of Shai Sachs, the only I can think of who uses a full name.
<
p>
I think that the internet always has a heavy level of anonymity, and I’m not sure how much can be done about that. I suppose that credit cards are one other form of ID to put with a person, but that then creates a large pile of credit card numbers (which can be in a very secure database, but still be vulnerable). And it cuts out people who don’t have credit cards. I suspect that that influences few of our current users, but it’s still not great.
Just click on About Us if you want to know who David, Charley and I really are. As to verifications, credit cards would not be my preference, although that is what almost all commercial sites do. We might start with a group of people who David, Charley and I are sure have given their real names (for example, because we know them personally) and then require new members to have an existing member vouch that the name they submit is their real name. There are lots of ways to implement such a system as a practical matter. The principle is what is important. Anyway, thanks to everyone for their thoughtful comments, except for the guy who called David, Charley and me jerks which was totally obnoxious and, in a certain sense, pathetic — and, yeah, we do know, ironically enough, what HIS real name is. We’ll consider how best to proceed.
Do you really want BMG to become invite-only? That’s what having members vouch for newbies would turn into.
<
p>
In my opinion, the single best moment in Blue Mass Group history came during the Feburary caucuses where this was by far the best place (and in some cases the only place) to get information about how they went. Could that ever happen again if you put up barriers to joining?
<
p>
By the way, it’s two clicks to get my real name. I’m not hiding anything, but even if I were, I think I’ve been around here long enough and have contributed enough to the MA progressive blogosphere that it doesn’t matter whether you know my real name or not. My biases, opinions and whatnot are either well-known or easy to find out. That’s what matters, not what my name is. Does it really matter if a post is signed by ‘Joe Schmoe from Brighton’ or ‘MannyFan24’ if I don’t know who Joe Schmoe is?
It is ironic that there has been a lot of conversation about transparency in politics and disclosure of taxes etc… But when it comes to simply putting your name behind what you say, the tune seems to change.
<
p>
I think eliminating anonymous posting will raise the level of discussion. I can live without anonymous gossip. Go for it!
<
p>
If anonymous posting is still allowed, I would suggest (if possible) banning IP addresses that abuse BMG policy.
<
p>
Jim Caralis – my real name.
I’m less persuaded than Bob about the need to do away with anonymous posting. But, to the extent that people feel comfortable using their real names and are using an internet “handle” just out of habit, I’d encourage them to rethink whether it’s really a good idea. Many of our best and most respected commenters – Lynne, Susan M, Tim Little, and Jim Caralis, to name just a few, either use their full names or are very easy to identify. There are, of course, “anonymous” commenters who also regularly make fine contributions here. But, while argument is capable of standing on its own, I do feel as though it carries more weight when its author is willing to stand behind it publicly.
After thinking about your excuses for disclosing the Reilly campaign staffer , I have decided that you have breached your fiduciary relationship to those of us who have enjoyed posting to this site with the confidence that our posts are anonymous. You have chilled a lot of us as a result of your action. As a moderate and a Republican ,I have also tried to also present discussion points contrary to progressive thinking only to engender interesting debate. I have also learned a quite a lot of good things about the progressive agenda. Anonymous discussion engenders the purest type of debate.
<
p>
It does not matter to me whose name was revealed by BMG. If the revelation was a Patrick, Gabrielli or Mihos staffer ,it is not the point. You have truly publicly breached the trust that I and other bloggers have bestowed on you by revealing the source of what was a silly nasty post from some low level Reilly volunteer.
<
p>
Many of us who are business people or are involved tangentially with the public and/or government or campaigns find it therapeutic to deal in discussions on the blogs. But for a number of reasons it is inappropriate for us to disclose our identities. We may have legal and other issues to consider before we put our thoughts to the keyboard. I am sure that many of those progressives who blog do not understand this problem .Unfortunately, there is the real litigious world out there and it is simply not worth it.
<
p>
If BMG is aware of our IP address and is in a situation someday in the future where they have to disclose identities of bloggers , a number of us would not wish to have our names out in the blogosphere.
<
p>
The biggest cost of requiring verification is one you don’t mention: We’ll lost most new commenters who don’t care about anonymity, also. The bigger the barrier of entry, they fewer people will bother. For the most part, people don’t particularly care about commenting here until they’ve already done it. If someone new finds a complex procedure required to comment, they probably just won’t bother.
<
p>
Several times now, I’ve gotten email reactions or in person comments about some things here, including some of my posts, and I often say “why don’t you post a comment yourself? it’s easy!” and describe the procedure for them. For example, when Dmitry from Brandeis who was quoted in the Boston Globe, emailed me about my post, I suggested he comment, and he did. If there were a verification process, he might not have.
<
p>
These people aren’t hiding their identity (Dmitry made his username be first initial + last name, for example). It’s just a matter of convenient. We already have a lot more lurkers than commenters. Anything that tips the balance even further will make this blog not as good as it could be.