CBC Leading In Ending Anonymous Comments

[Big Guy]

The CBC is changing the conditions of posting to its site:

http://www.cbc.ca/aboutcbc/discover/submissions.html

I have been a contributor to the On-line CBC TV version for years. Anonymity was allowed and the opinion section became dominated by those who lurk anonymously on the web. Consequently, that interactive section was shut down.

I just received the following e-mail:

"Changes coming to commenting on CBC.ca. This email has been sent to all registered members of cbc.ca who use an email address to sign-in to our platform.

We’d like to share some important news about a move first announced in March and that we hope will have a positive effect on the conversations happening in our online spaces. Starting next week, all CBC.ca community members will be asked to use their real names when contributing to our sites.

On June 13, you will need to re-register and create a new account using a real name – even if you already use your full name to comment. There’s no action you can take now to prevent having to re-register.

How it’ll work

On June 13, at 10 a.m. ET, your old account will become dormant and you’ll no longer be able to access your profile. Resetting our community in this way allows us to preserve pseudonyms on comments you’ve made in the past. It also means we can implement new verification measures more consistently across all our platforms.

Once you’ve created your new profile, your name will be moderated, just as comments are. We will only accept comments for publication if they’re signed by a name that looks real. We’re also introducing email verification on all new accounts.

A fresh start and a work in progress

For those of you who have invested hours contributing to our stories, accumulating likes and followers, we recognize that the loss of your profile may be hard to bear. However, we believe this reset is a necessary step to help curtail some of the troubling behaviour we occasionally see on our sites.

This is just another step as we continue to evolve our digital communities; we welcome your constructive thoughts, ideas and feedback. Most importantly, we hope you’ll help lead and shape our new community. You can read more in this blog on how we’re building a better community and please check out the FAQs for more details.

Finally, we recognize that some of you won’t be pleased with our move to real names, but we’re hoping that the majority of you will see the value in promoting transparency within our online communities.

Welcome to your new cbc.ca community (starting June 13).

Alex Johnston
Vice-President, Strategy and Public Affairs
and the CBC.ca Community Team"

It may be time for the MLW to consider moving to the same process.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Big Guy

[Guest]

Yeah, I got that. They'll only accept comments from a name that looks real.

That should do it.

Alex Johnston? Yeah right.

Edited June 6, 2016 by bcsapper

[PIK]

Hi my name is John Smith.

[?Impact]

I have had the same (or very similar, depending on allowable characters, etc.) moniker on many on-line forums for the past 8 years. That is when I began participating in political oriented discussions, I have been (and still do) use my real name in other on-line forums since the 80's. There is nothing stopping someone from creating a 'real looking' name, or many multiple names. The only positive effect of the new policy will to be get rid of some of the monikers people use to throw insults around (Harper_Sucks, Trudeau_ManChild, etc.), it will do absolutely nothing to get rid of anonymity. This is another dumb move by the CBC. Now the trolls will simply create multiple accounts with names representing the ethnicity and gender they wish to pretend to be.

The best move by the CBC would to be to fire their useless moderators, who accomplish nothing but put a long time lag in postings.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's a good way to prevent non-mainstream views from being expressed in order to help control the narrative. Especially as SJWs will use online comments they disagree with to try to get others fired from their jobs.

Oh well, this is the natural progression of the CBC.

-> People making comments we don't like on certain stories? Arbitrarily disallow comments on certain stories.

-> People voicing dissenting opinions on Aboriginal issues and think that people should be equal under the law? Ban all comments from aboriginal issues.

-> People having conversations in the comment section, which might cause people to change their position on an issue? Delay comments for hours and have every comment looked at by a moderator, because that's the best use of tax payer money.

I've never posted on the CBC site, but it is interested to occasionally read comments.

[-1=e^ipi]

It may be time for the MLW to consider moving to the same process.

If MLW does that, I'm out of here.

[Moonlight Graham]

Am I allowed to embed videos here?

[Bryan]

Many people have very legitimate reasons for not wanting their names posted online. Same reasons they might have unlisted numbers. Telling those people that they can't use a pseudonym is the same thing as saying they are not allowed to speak.

[Bryan]

It may be time for the MLW to consider moving to the same process.

Lead by example and go first.

[Big Guy]

Lead by example and go first.

Anyone really interested can take quotes from some of my pieces here and Google them. If they appear in other publications that require real names then their questions would be answered.

[Big Guy]

Many people have very legitimate reasons for not wanting their names posted online. Same reasons they might have unlisted numbers. Telling those people that they can't use a pseudonym is the same thing as saying they are not allowed to speak.

No, what it says is that they are not allowed to make statements in anonymity and consequently have to accept the responsibility for their statements.

You always have the right to express your opinion - and be prepared to accept a reaction, directed towards you, for the consequences of your views.

On the other hand, if you have views that may endanger your job, your family or your body, then I suggest that you either keep them to yourself or accept the results.

[Bryan]

No, what it says is that they are not allowed to make statements in anonymity and consequently have to accept the responsibility for their statements.

You always have the right to express your opinion - and be prepared to accept a reaction, directed towards you, for the consequences of your views.

On the other hand, if you have views that may endanger your job, your family or your body, then I suggest that you either keep them to yourself or accept the results.

Excactly what I just said: telling many people who have a legitimate reason for keeping their names off the internet that they can't use a pseudonym is the same thing as saying that they can't speak.

[Bonam]

No, what it says is that they are not allowed to make statements in anonymity and consequently have to accept the responsibility for their statements.

You always have the right to express your opinion - and be prepared to accept a reaction, directed towards you, for the consequences of your views.

On the other hand, if you have views that may endanger your job, your family or your body, then I suggest that you either keep them to yourself or accept the results.

Except that social standards change and even views that are considered "main stream" today could be seen as unacceptable in the future, and they'll be online for all to see forever. Ever notice how many public figures have had significant impacts to their careers for statements they made decades ago that were perfectly mainstream then, but seem non-pc now? No one with two brain cells to rub together is gonna post anything even remotely politically or socially contentious in a non-anonymous forum unless they are already near the end of their career/life. Requiring real identities to be used is nothing but an attempt to curtail non-conformist views. On the other hand, efforts like the CBC here to get people to register with names that "look real" but still could easily be fake names simply causes posters extra hassle to create new accounts and gives naive readers the impression that the forums are non-anonymous when they really still are.

[Big Guy]

I suggest that any comment made by someone using an avatar can be identified as to the source. If you have enough money, time and motivation, you can find out the identity of every member of this board.

[Michael Hardner]

Am I allowed to embed videos here?

Yes. Off Topic forums are designed for this kind of delightful fun. What is that - some kind of animated cartoodle ? It looks like Archie Bunker's Place.

[Moonlight Graham]

Many people have very legitimate reasons for not wanting their names posted online. Same reasons they might have unlisted numbers. Telling those people that they can't use a pseudonym is the same thing as saying they are not allowed to speak.

Let's just throw the last dying shred of privacy we have on the internet out the window.

Better yet, can only post online with you real head pic and SIN # in your avatar.

[-1=e^ipi]

No, what it says is that they are not allowed to make statements in anonymity and consequently have to accept the responsibility for their statements.

By 'responsibility' you mean be fired for expressing a dissenting opinion?

On the other hand, if you have views that may endanger your job, your family or your body, then I suggest that you either keep them to yourself or accept the results.

And maybe anonymous posters already avoid saying certain things, in real life, where people will fire them for having an unpopular opinion.

Edited June 7, 2016 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Many of the top youtube atheists chose to start their channels anonymously, such as TJ Kirk and Carl Benjamin, and I think there was a reason for this. Atheist beliefs are still not well accepted in society, although things have improved over the past 10 years.

Many women writers in the past used fake male names in order to get their work published and accepted in society.

LGBTQIAP people often discuss issues anonymously online due to potential backlash.

There are all sorts of marginalized groups that can discuss things due to anonymity, and you want to take that away from them...

[-1=e^ipi]

I guess Big Guy wants his safe space where he can avoid unpopular opinions.

[Bryan]

I guess Big Guy wants his safe space where he can avoid unpopular opinions.

Yes. The only reason to demand real names is to crush dissenting opinion.

[overthere]

Am I allowed to embed videos here?

Yes you are. Allow me to commend you on using your real name Moonlight. Or would you prefer Mr Graham? Do you also play Delta Blues on an old acoustic guitar?

[overthere]

Hi my name is John Smith.

Good morning John. I am Spartacus.

[Big Guy]

I guess Big Guy wants his safe space where he can avoid unpopular opinions.

That is an interesting view. If I wanted to avoid opinions I would just remove this and other sites from my desktop. I demand nothing. The CBC is trying to create a forum where people will take responsibility for their opinions - what is wrong with that?

If you post or state something on here under your avatar that you would not say at a family kitchen table then I suggest that you ask yourself why. If you have views that would get you fired, whose fault is that? If you are a bigot or mysoginist or anti-semite or homophobe then why should you not have to accept the repercussions of having (and sharing) those views?

Most unpopular opinions are not popular because they are distasteful, divisive for our society, unhealthy and abhorrent to others. That is why they need the cover of anonymity for their source - the real individual.

You do not need real names to crush opinion, you might want the real names to see if the individual has the courage to accept the responsibility for making controversial statements.

[TimG]

The CBC is trying to create a forum where people will take responsibility for their opinions - what is wrong with that?

Because it will mean no one will express any opinion that might draw the ire of the politically correct fascists. The net result is the forum with become an echo chamber for people and contribute nothing to the online discussion of issues.

Most unpopular opinions are not popular because they are distasteful, divisive for our society, unhealthy and abhorrent to others.

IOW, you only want to hear things which you already agree with. There are lots of comfortable echo chambers on the web that you can retreat to. However, as a company funded by taxpayers the CBC has no business creating a system that ensures that only opinions that offend no one can be expressed. Edited June 7, 2016 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

The CBC is trying to create a forum where people will take responsibility for their opinions - what is wrong with that?

I've already explained why. Threatening people's lively hood for having the wrong opinion, is wrong, harms marginalized people, and results in an echo chamber where only the 'correct' mainstream opinion gets expressed.

Saudi Arabia has that approach. You can be atheist in Saudi Arabia, but you will end up in jail getting lashed if you aren't killed.

If you post or state something on here under your avatar that you would not say at a family kitchen table then I suggest that you ask yourself why.

I know why.

Most unpopular opinions are not popular because they are distasteful, divisive for our society, unhealthy and abhorrent to others.

So taking the classical liberal position that people should be equal under the law and the best person should get the job is a distasteful microaggression that is divisive for society. But taking the mainstream SJW position that people should be divided up based on race & sex and be discriminated based upon this somehow isn't divisive, nor racist nor sexist. Makes perfect sense...

Hey, while we are at it, why not just get rid of anonymous voting? After all, we want people to take responsibility for their political opinions!