Newspapers Eliminate the Ability for Anonymous Haters to Participate in Their Forums

A Friday, 15 February USA Today article by Rem Rieder, titled, "Anonymous Comments Banned Because They're So #*!% Rude" is relevant for those involved in Patch.

The story notes that the Miami Herald eliminated the ability for anonymous comments to be made because participants "didn't want to face the abuse and the name-calling they were likely to encounter from anonymous commenters that disagreed with them". 

The Herald's Managing Editor stated, "People would say, "I don't want to stand up in front of people who throw eggs" and that "We had a big group of trolls who would do nasty things.""

Consequently, Herald commenters now must sign in through their Facebook accounts in order to post.

The author goes on to say that newspapers want engagement with their readers, but that, "The dialogue on many sites has been poisoned from the get-go by the ugly mean-spirited verbiage of a small, but often prolific band of anonymous posters.  Newspapers have long required those writing letters to the editor to provide their names and addresses - for good reason.  If you are going to take a stand, you should take responsibility for it."

The story notes that The Buffalo News eliminated anonymous comments in June 2010, that the level of discourse improved radically subsequent to the change, and that after an initial drop-off, the number of comments has rebounded. 

It is telling that those who have violated the Patch Terms of Use and those that have launched vile personal attacks, lies, distortion, unjustifiable conclusions and assumptions, and putting words in writer's mouth that are not there have not been willing to stand behind their views with their full names.  Perhaps the parent company of Patch will someday soon require that all who have something to say be on a level playing field with those that have the courage to stand behind their opinions with their identity.