If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston.com)   Internet Dickwad Theory finally catches up with HuffPo, who just announced that anonymous comments would no longer be permitted. Good thing everyone on Fark posts with their real name, and not some ridiculous, made-up handle, such as "Drew"   (boston.com) divider line 39
    More: Obvious, Arianna Huffington, HuffPost, site plans, trolls  
•       •       •

2542 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2013 at 8:46 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-22 08:47:29 AM
4 votes:
F*ck off HuffPo
2013-08-22 09:12:01 AM
3 votes:
I'd never want to start an online community. Fark is a rare jewel indeed where even the worst discussions look ten times better than the best on most sites, even with our fake names.
2013-08-22 08:53:54 AM
3 votes:
The days of anonymous commenting on The Huffington Post are numbered.

A man can dream...
2013-08-22 12:59:28 PM
2 votes:
If they are seriuous about reducing the amount of baseless braindead troll material they are going to have to rid of thier "journalism" staff.
2013-08-22 12:59:27 PM
2 votes:
I'd be fine with it, except it's now far too damned easy for someone else to use even that small piece of information to make your life a living hell in the real world.

I don't think HuffPo understands that, the second they implement this, their comments section is going to croak - it won't just flush out trolls, it'll also put a gag around every person that doesn't want their personal comments about political issues linked directly to their careers, or to their families, or to their hobbies, where their employers, relatives, friends, and enemies can exploit them for any number of purposes.

Yes, trolls suck. Just look at the Politics tab on FARK. But, as they say, the product of freedom and security is a constant - you want more freedom, you give up more security, and vice versa. HuffPo wants way too much security, and they're willing to give up a lot of freedom to get it. I'd rather be free and deal with trolls, than secure but unable to say a damned thing without hearing about it from my boss, or my wife, or my co-workers, or a recruiter, or...
2013-08-22 10:02:12 AM
2 votes:

thecpt: redmid17: ESPN did that and it basically killed their comments section. Whether or not that's worth it or the aim of the measure is another thing I suppose.

Nfl.com has it to and it's very, oh what's the word, incredible how blatantly stupid, biased, and rude people still are. It only gets worse with politics.


To clarify and maybe I'm missing something from yours, but I meant that ESPN's comment section is a remnant of a remnant of what it used to be. AFC South posts that routinely got 300+ comments now get maybe 5-6 on a normal day and 10-15 if a story is big.
2013-08-22 09:18:50 AM
2 votes:
ESPN did that and it basically killed their comments section. Whether or not that's worth it or the aim of the measure is another thing I suppose.
2013-08-22 09:15:07 AM
2 votes:
You lost any relevance you may have had when you sold out to AOL in 2011, so just be quiet, you annoying greek wench.
2013-08-22 09:06:28 AM
2 votes:

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: The point is the comment made no sense at all and implied the article stated something it did not.


So they aren't (further) restricting discussion?
2013-08-22 09:02:19 AM
2 votes:
Crusading against internet trolling is less likely to be successful than the War on Drugs/Terror.
2013-08-22 09:01:11 AM
2 votes:
Because people never set up fake Facebook accounts etc for the purposes of trolling sites that require "identification?"
2013-08-22 09:00:33 AM
2 votes:

CJHardin: Just where the fark in TFA did it mention that HuffPo is an echo chamber?


It didn't, but then I don't need the Boston Globe to tell me that grass is green either.
2013-08-22 09:00:01 AM
2 votes:
I stand 100% behind her changes, or my name isn't Orville Reddenbacher.

But she does have a good point and I partially agree with it. Behind a cloak of online anonymity too many people act like jerk and make things too personal. Here on Fark people go onto the Sports Tab, of all places, and act like they're defending the Constitution the way they behave towards other people over stupid subjects.

I like Drew's method better. Give the User power over whose comments they want to Ignore by making a list. It makes Fark more enjoyable to read.
2013-08-22 08:58:58 AM
2 votes:
I've never understood the sites/newspapers/etc that use Facebook accts as their line of authentication for commenting on their sites.
2013-08-22 08:57:15 AM
2 votes:

GoldSpider: HuffPo an echo chamber?  Who knew?


Just where the fark in TFA did it mention that HuffPo is an echo chamber?  I'm guessing that this is more about the Foxbots who visit just to scream "Obummer" and call all the "libtards" names.
2013-08-22 08:52:23 AM
2 votes:
"And the site does not want to risk losing its robust culture of reader dialogue."

images.sodahead.com
2013-08-22 08:51:13 AM
2 votes:
HuffPo an echo chamber?  Who knew?
2013-08-23 03:01:08 PM
1 votes:

RottenEggs: Badgers: You lost any relevance you may have had when you sold out to AOL in 2011, so just be quiet, you annoying greek wench.

Ha .She reminds me of Zsa Zsa Gabor .


Zsa Zsa is Hungarian and they pretty much hate everyone else in the area...
2013-08-22 04:38:59 PM
1 votes:
The bigger LOL is out there.

Imagine how many Phillip Smiths there are.  The farking websites DON'T EVEN VERIFY YOUR NAME AT ALL they just shunt it off to google or farcebook.


Frankly I don't bother with websites that require a facebook login for comment.  Its like requiring shiat smeared hands to wave at a parade.

Wait.. not "like".   Being able to post comments at a news site because you have a Facebook account is PRECISELY waving your shiat smeared hands in public!
2013-08-22 02:00:03 PM
1 votes:
Fark Huffpo and their retarded articles.  No offense to actual retards, some of them are actually fair and nice people.

I once made an account to comment on the Ariel Castro case or something, they moderated away my perfectly reasonable comments, but left up vile garbage like "All men should be castrated a birth!"  So it's not okay to post stuff that disturbs their echo chamber, but it's okay to post blatant calls to/threats of violence.... wow.

Now if I want to numb my brain after a hard day I surf somewhere reasonable like 4chan instead.  /Sarcasm, sort of..... At least they are fair.
2013-08-22 01:18:03 PM
1 votes:

picturescrazy: I'd never want to start an online community. Fark is a rare jewel indeed where even the worst discussions look ten times better than the best on most sites, even with our fake names.


You know, that is very true.  While sometimes contentious (certainly on the politics board), the discourse here is usually very enlightening.  I typically know more about a subject, sometimes much more, from reading the Fark comments, than I would have had I just read the article, or depended on the commenters at some inferior news aggregator site.
2013-08-22 12:59:18 PM
1 votes:
Rich people like Ariana Huffington hate anonymity. In theory Ms. Huffy has enough money and influence to get the vast majority of people in this country fired and otherwise ruin their lives should she set her mind to it. She might not actually do it but the fact that she can makes her tingly in her shriveled cooter. Anonymity negates that power and levels the playing field.

The man on the street doesn't give a shiat about mean comments on the internet. The 1%, oligarchs, however you want to call them hate the idea that the "little" people can act without "consequences". Just like the money, power, position, and influence allows their "betters" to.
2013-08-22 11:31:13 AM
1 votes:
Real names? Sure thing, Mizz Huffington. Why the Hell not?

www.democraticunderground.com
2013-08-22 11:27:13 AM
1 votes:
How about we just don't comment on Mizz Huffington's sh*t-ass AOL-operated site at all and let the whole thing wither?
2013-08-22 10:51:28 AM
1 votes:
Also known as "John Gabriel's Internet farkwad Theory"

art.penny-arcade.com
2013-08-22 10:44:06 AM
1 votes:
i184.photobucket.com
2013-08-22 10:23:07 AM
1 votes:

reillan: I guess I should come clean and admit that I am Dave Matthews.


Your music sucks!
2013-08-22 10:23:03 AM
1 votes:

skinink: I stand 100% behind her changes, or my name isn't Orville Reddenbacher.

But she does have a good point and I partially agree with it. Behind a cloak of online anonymity too many people act like jerk and make things too personal. Here on Fark people go onto the Sports Tab, of all places, and act like they're defending the Constitution the way they behave towards other people over stupid subjects.

I like Drew's method better. Give the User power over whose comments they want to Ignore by making a list. It makes Fark more enjoyable to read.


That... and... the Mods... the unmentionable thought police... read this post quickly, before they take it down too.

It literally is IN THE RULES that you CANNOT talk about FARKs rules and their application... Great system we've got here.  A utopia of thought and expression.
2013-08-22 10:22:11 AM
1 votes:

megarian: reillan: I guess I should come clean and admit that I am Dave Matthews.

I'm so sorry for your condition.


I actually laughed out loud at this.
2013-08-22 10:01:53 AM
1 votes:

skinink: Behind a cloak of online anonymity too many people act like jerk and make things too personal.


People are jerks under their real names.  Just look at Facebook for glub's sake.  That people will suddenly be more polite without anonymity is a goddamn lie.

The actual reasoning to remove anonymity is that corporations aren't making enough money.  They need your soul too, and "internet safety" be damned.  I had this argument with ESR on G+ and while ESR is a raging Libertarian, he thinks that anonymity isn't a right, in spite of what the SCOTUS has said time and again.

fark these "real names only" people.

--
BMO
2013-08-22 09:44:34 AM
1 votes:

czetie: There is a huge difference between pseudonymous comments and anonymous comments. A pseudonym is still an identity and has the important characteristic that if I act like a dick under this handle there are consequences down the line, ranging from antagonism to being farkied as "pompous windbag" to being outright ignored. By contrast, anonymous contents are free of all social consequences.

And as any student of game theory knows, a game played repeatedly has very different optimization strategy from a game played only once.

The fact that occasionally, the true identity behind an especially appalling pseudonym might be revealed resulting in extended social consequences is a bonus, but its not essential.


Can you imagine what it would be like if the rest of the USA could put a face or at least a real name to the Freepers?
2013-08-22 09:09:05 AM
1 votes:
There is a huge difference between pseudonymous comments and anonymous comments. A pseudonym is still an identity and has the important characteristic that if I act like a dick under this handle there are consequences down the line, ranging from antagonism to being farkied as "pompous windbag" to being outright ignored. By contrast, anonymous contents are free of all social consequences.

And as any student of game theory knows, a game played repeatedly has very different optimization strategy from a game played only once.

The fact that occasionally, the true identity behind an especially appalling pseudonym might be revealed resulting in extended social consequences is a bonus, but its not essential.
2013-08-22 09:08:21 AM
1 votes:

reillan: megarian: reillan: I guess I should come clean and admit that I am Dave Matthews.

I'm so sorry for your condition.

Doctors say it's curable.


Unfortunately it requires a lead application to the head and the survivability rate is pretty low
2013-08-22 09:06:08 AM
1 votes:

sulco: I've never understood the sites/newspapers/etc that use Facebook accts as their line of authentication for commenting on their sites.


Well it's actually something brilliant that Facebook did and that's make their authentication API exposed to third parties (so has google and others).  Facebook has so many users that the little site wins big if they let people use that instead of creating some new account and password for yet another site.  It's what guarantees that facebook will be around for a long time even if they lose a huge number of their users.  Of course the next new social media network may also do this and facebook will slowly die, but it will take a long time.
2013-08-22 09:05:24 AM
1 votes:
could care less. HuffPo blows dog. the owner can do as they please, and so can those who use that site.
2013-08-22 09:05:22 AM
1 votes:

reillan: I guess I should come clean and admit that I am Dave Matthews.


I'm so sorry for your condition.
2013-08-22 09:03:28 AM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: CJHardin: Just where the fark in TFA did it mention that HuffPo is an echo chamber?

It didn't, but then I don't need the Boston Globe to tell me that grass is green either.


The point is the comment made no sense at all and implied the article stated something it did not.
2013-08-22 09:00:49 AM
1 votes:
They know they're a joke and they're trying to fix that now?
2013-08-22 08:54:58 AM
1 votes:

Maul555: The days of anonymous commenting on The Huffington Post are numbered.

A man can dream...


Oh com'on, every side needs their useful idiots.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report