But there remains an element of blogging and Web commentary that drags down the quality of conversation like a rotted corpse clinging to the heroine's ankles in a Stephen King story. Too many anonymous posters are electronic piss ants, crawling through the virtual dregs of more honorable people's thoughts and efforts.
When I have something to say, on this page or while posting on a blog site, I use my name. Whether I am criticizing the mayor, applauding someone's effort or working through the aftermath of a personal life change, I stand in the open, for whatever roses or rotten tomatoes are tossed my way.
That's accountability. That's why newspapers generally eschew unnamed sources, and why no newspaper with an understanding of ethics and responsibility publishes anonymous commentary. Show me one that does, and I'll show you a reckless publication you should fear like you'd fear a loose cannon on deck during a hurricane.
Read the entire column at:
http://www.toledofreepress.com/?id=4987
I really understand where Miller is coming from - My posts are identified, always. And hey Mike, it's spelled Steven. But it's the thought that counts.
There is actually a lot to be said for anonymity in my opinion. I feel that some people are truly wacky, and could come after you if you use your real name. I'm not scared. It's just that it makes a person wonder if it's even worth it to post any type of thought or ideas on the internet? Then there are those who threaten to sue everyone whose comments they don't like. Is it even worth it? To have some clown suing you because you disagree with them on the internet? It's really much easier to just leave this stupid internet and stay home and do your own thing and forget about it. What's next? Putting down your address and phone number after every comment? There are actually some damned good reasons for being anonymous. What if you have no great achievements to distinguish yourself? Does that mean your opinion is worth any less? There are some people I don't want to invite into my personal space, and my personal business, and my life, period. I am not a very trusting type of person. The internet is filled with electronic piss-ants and that is the very reason it's much better to be relatively anonymous. Turning off the computer is another option. Who the hell ever said we humans have to be connected all the time? Go to the park, and go for a walk, or get a kite and go fly the damn thing. I like using the internet, yet I would no more trust some of the people here than I would trust Charles Manson!
The grounds for a lawsuit resulting from something posted on the internet is extremly unusual. Even if you write something unflattering if it is your opinion, that's pretty much free speech. If you want to be totally logical, if you really slandered or libeled somone on a blog even as an anonymous, your IP address is tracked since the majority of you do not use an anonymizer program. Even those depending on the choice are not foolproof.
I understand why Michael wrote this editorial and I have mixed emotions on anonymous commenting. I allow it on my blog, people are not required to sign up or wait to have their comments moderated because I do understand some of you don't want to be identified. Yet, it is important to realize that an undentified person for many of us automatically has less credibility because we don't know if you are the same commenter below who raved about how smart you were. Unless we are the forum/blog operator...
I have to balance on my blog my desire to provide a place where people can comment as easily and as protected as possible knowing the few who have reasons to not be named, yet make sure it's not abused. Thankfully I have never had to ban or edit anyone (except spammers) and there have been times when that has been a difficult decision.
We don't remember days only moments...
What do we tell our children about divulging any personal info on the internet? Including their name.
I post anonymously with validated and documented complaints and photo's; does my posting invalidate what I do because I do not identify myself?
Is a person entitled to privacy? Is a person entitled to speak out and not be named, Deepthroat from the Watergate era, and so on.
People in certain countries are jailed and tortured for speaking out, Eypgt for one and that country also receives millions and millions of dollars in aid and yet a blogger was just jailed.
I also use a ssh tunnel service to encrypt my isp connections, why?, because I can and I want my privacy.
Mr. Miller makes some valid points but maybe he could not dismiss all out of hand and judge each person who posts with a little more research and then condemn or validate.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
:-) Cowardly, useless warts on the ass of the blogosphere.
If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.
I was thinking that too, what Mr. Miller was referring too, those that enter a dialog for no other good reason other than to provoke and offer nothing.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I think that more and more there's a growing grey area for those who wish to blog, and for those that think their blog is journalism. Michael Miller is a "journalist", but since he blogs he should do it in the light of day in order to remain credible. So when he says
When I have something to say, on this page or while posting on a blog site, I use my name. Whether I am criticizing the mayor, applauding someone's effort or working through the aftermath of a personal life change, I stand in the open, for whatever roses or rotten tomatoes are tossed my way.
That's accountability. That's why newspapers generally eschew unnamed sources, and why no newspaper with an understanding of ethics and responsibility publishes anonymous commentary. Show me one that does, and I'll show you a reckless publication you should fear like you'd fear a loose cannon on deck during a hurricane.
I think he's confusing those who wish to have their comments taken seriously in a "journalistic" sense, and those who wish to rant and debate anonymously. Trolls are exposed as trolls by their actions, and no one takes them seriously anyway. If he's talking about trolls, then he's wasting his time because they'll always exist. If he thinks that in order to criticize, people must identify themselves...then he's just fucking wrong.
Pink Slip
If you want commentary on trollish behavior - post it on the net and sit back.
You'll f**ing get it....eh slip?
If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.
Jr's take on the column:
http://www.toledotalk.com/cgi-bin/comments.pl/27/3562
I don't mind users posting under anonymous names. If you look at the user directory you will see most of the screen names are anonymous. I don't care to know who you are and I don't go looking for you.
I am going to be pretty liberal with postings and users. I also don't mind media/blog people/personalities highlighting their stories or work. I will not allow spam postings and most business advertisements and will edit profane language if I decide to. But this is the Wild Wild West and this is the latest frontier and it was usually the newer cities that were more lawless than the more established ones..so enjoy.
I DO think you lose credibility if you don't post under your real name or specify who you are. People have the right to question who you are and your intentions if you do not identify yourself. I do post under the admin account so people don't accuse me of trying to take over the site, but when I make allegations I will be doing it under my own name (e.g. the board member parking issue).
The Internet has matured to a point where I think there is a good cross section of society on it. Early on, there were many extremes, but I don't think this is the case anymore. I think threads can represent what a community thinks and I think this will only increase in the future as even more people make online destinations a part of their daily routine.
As long as the full spectrum of users in a society is represented here, we will be OK. Now if I can only get Anonymous Coward or limedrop911 to start posting here or maybe they already are...........
I would just cringe if anyone ever found out who I am. That is why I have created this special user name. I like my anonymity, thank you very much.
Sh-h-h-h. If you figure out who I am, please don't let anyone else know.
Roland's Ramblings
http://www.theglitch.ws/roland/
What does Michael Miller think of the Kevin "Sparky" Milliken incident that JR exposed on Toledo Talk?
Examples:
March 6, 2006 - "Of course, NBC-24 broke some exclusive details about the project. Kevin Milliken also reported Skippy is going to use millions of our taxpayer dollars to finance the arena like Ray Kest did with 5/3 Field."
June 9, 2006 - "Carty was supposed to be a guest on WSPD's Eye on Toledo last night. However, Brian Wilson said he pulled the plug on an in-studio interview with Kevin Milliken, the show's host, until the mayor issues a public apology to Fred, the station, and its advertisers."
June 27, 2006 - "One of WSPD's talk show hosts got charged $1500...and they've been talking about it for a couple of weeks."
July 5, 2006 - "Lemmon writes this toilet paper tirade against WSPD for bashing Carty. BTW, check out Eye on Toledo @ 6 pm-- Milliken seems to give WSPD some two-sided issues, stays local and has some journalism behind him."
July 13, 2006 - "Kevin Milliken has been hammering away at the flooding for two nights now on WSPD...had some info about the Toledo Waterways Initiative and a lawsuit that took more than a decade to settle."
Does he think Milliken is a "piss-ant" for using his anonymity to shamelessly promote himself and the media outlets he worked for? Also, does Michael Miller think that NBC-24 & WSPD are "reckless publications" for using and promoting the work of a anonymous poster?? It was also pointed out that Milliken writes a weekly for the Free Press. What of this connection? Does Milliken still post under a pseudonym, promoting himself and the same paper that Mr Miller works for? I think these are important questions that Michael Miller should answer.
Pink Slip
I think all of this calls for us to reexamine our journalistic laws and ethics rules.
Bloggers to some extent should share the same rights as other journalists but the country should diminish the rights when it comes to journalistic commentary. This not only means bloggers but journalists such as O'Reilly and Grace would see diminished rights as well.
Furthermore journalistic ethics should be reexamined. Journalists are only held accountable for what they write but not for what they don't write. Key pieces of information could be left out and the journalist at hand would recieve nothing more than a slap on the wrist if that at all. Things such as the policy articles for money scandal and the Tailwind scandal would be less apt to occur.
Imagine if that were the case in other occupations. A lawyer tells you to fight your case without correctly telling you the ramifications that could come if you are not found in favor of? That lawyer would be either disbarred or some other severe reprimand. Why should journalists and bloggers receive a different standard?
MikeyA
MikeyA
That's why Mikey. IF a site positions itself as a news site - I agree with you. If it positions itself as a place to post current events and offer commentary on such - that is a different story.
One is commenting on the news and the other is supposed to be reporting the news. The difference is opinion vs. fact.
And that is why there is a different level of conduct for opinion pieces in a newspaper than there is for news reporting.
If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.
February 15, 2007
Media Giant Bullies Internet Critic
Discovery Communications Tries to Chill Speech with Baseless Legal Claims
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_02.php#005126
http://www.eff.org
It more it is hard to prove your case and win, but suing is really easy, anyone can do it.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I don't think you are the type of poster that Michael was referring to. You are one of the ones I was referring too when I said I realize there are people who feel they must be anonymous. Sides, you do put a name with all of your posts.
The anonymizer has no bearing except to point out to the poster I was responding to - cmantyla45 - that she or he isn't as anonymous as they think they are...
We don't remember days only moments...
It's not the same thing. We tell our children not to talk to strangers in person, too, and yet we adults deal with "strangers" every day, at the grocery store, gas station, our jobs (depending on what we do for a living), etc.
My feeling is that if you're going to post something and you expect to be taken seriously, you go into it with the same attitude you'd have if you were writing a letter to the editor of your local paper. Since most newspapers don't accept anonymous letters, anyone who reads what you wrote will know your name.
If someone isn't comfortable with that, they probably shouldn't be posting.
I agree the actual "suing" is done but when it comes to the actual case it's another. Recently a conservative blogger by the name of Scott Pullins had filed a lawsuit against an anonymous commenter on a forum. He's an attorney...he dropped the case a few days ago...
We don't remember days only moments...
if you were writing a letter to the editor of your local paper. Since most newspapers don't accept anonymous letters
I wrote a letter to the editor of the Blade once and it was published, on a Sunday I think. Later that day I was flooded with phone calls by people who'd looked up my phone number and address.
Luckily they were all nice calls but they could have just as easily been bad and worse if they had my phone number they also had my address so I could have gotten unwelcome visitors.
Considering that my letter was about in regards to a police officer shooting a guy in a flea bag motel and the guys family was playing the race card and calling the police officer a killer because the gun the guy was waving around at the police wasn't working amd that I came out on the side of the police it could have easily gone badly for me had one of the guys friends had decided to pay me a visit.
I've had an unlisted, unpublished number since then.
I think the Blade and other papers should rethink that whole posting of peoples street & names (if they still are I don't get the paper). Considering how some subjects can inflame people I think its a dangerous practice.
http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Member_Resources/Litigati...