Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Huffington Post: "Let's Do Away With Anonymous Posting"

by sundialsvc4 (Abbot)
on Jun 28, 2013 at 14:59 UTC ( #1041268=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
  • Comment on Huffington Post: "Let's Do Away With Anonymous Posting"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Huffington Post: "Let's Do Away With Anonymous Posting"
by SuicideJunkie (Vicar) on Jun 28, 2013 at 16:06 UTC

    Unfortunately, due to reasons noted earlier (Re^2: Proposal: eliminate down-votes) I must downvote the OP.

    The horse you are beating is dead. Its not pining, its passed on. Expired and gone to meet its maker. Off the twig, kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil!

Re: Huffington Post: "Let's Do Away With Anonymous Posting"
by Happy-the-monk (Canon) on Jun 28, 2013 at 16:24 UTC

    It's a free monastery, it would be foolish to try to stop a monk from collecting downvotes,...
    after that's already been tried and he's asking for it again and again and again...

    Cheers, Sören

    (hooked on the Perl Programming language)

Re: Huffington Post: "Let's Do Away With Anonymous Posting"
by LanX (Cardinal) on Jun 28, 2013 at 15:15 UTC
    Why do you open a new thread again???

    ....

    You know what? Plz don't answer!

    I'll downvote you right away!

    Cheers Rolf

    ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

    update

    a small super search selection of similar PMD threads you started

    written by any of sundialsvc4 2013-06-28 sundialsvc4 Huffington Post: "Let's Do Away With An +onymous Posting" PMD 2013-06-10 sundialsvc4 (Toward a better PerlMonks) Who do we s +erve, and why, and how can we do it better? PMD 2013-03-18 sundialsvc4 Once again ... is it time to get rid of + the Anonymous Monk? PMD 2012-05-31 sundialsvc4 Proposal: eliminate down-votes PMD 2011-11-30 sundialsvc4 We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN +-voting PMD

    for more click search!

Re: Huffington Post: "Let's Do Away With Anonymous Posting"
by CountZero (Bishop) on Jun 29, 2013 at 12:09 UTC
    Interesting, but utterly irrelevant and non-convincing.

    CountZero

    A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

    My blog: Imperial Deltronics
Re: Huffington Post: "Let's Do Away With Anonymous Posting"
by hdb (Monsignor) on Jun 29, 2013 at 13:06 UTC

    Not sure where the Huffington Post is located, but even in that distant quarters they must have heard, that in the age of PRISM and Tempora there is no such thing as anonymous posting anymore.

Re: Huffington Post: "Let's Do Away With Anonymous Posting"
by OfficeLinebacker (Chaplain) on Jul 05, 2013 at 18:33 UTC
    This is the first time I've seen this discussion on PM, so as someone who's interested in the concept of anonymous contributions on the internet, I'd like to know where's the place this discussion is actually happening.

      I'm not sure what you're looking for, the topic has been discussed here many times, see links in existing responses to this thread.

        The only links I found were to other posts by the OP, showing his affinity for attracting downvotes, but no links to actual previous discussions of the HuffPost article. Am I missing something?
Re: Huffington Post: "Let's Do Away With Anonymous Posting"
by pemungkah (Priest) on Jan 23, 2014 at 04:00 UTC
    (Please note that I am posting a personal observation, and it would be nice if you responded with where you think I've got it wrong instead of simply downvoting. I realize that there may be things that I do not know about, and would appreciate being informed. Note that ridicule and name-calling inform me only as to your level of couth.)

    There will always be divisive topics on which people will be tempted to post anonymously because the things that they post in response to these topics might reflect badly upon them. If the Anonymous Monk did not exist, these folks probably wouldn't post; but because it does, there's a route to post anything at all because there's no way that anyone can know who it was.

    I have heard the reasons that people want to retain anonymous posting. I will say I understand them but personally view them more as excuses than solid reasons. Many of the reasons that aren't excuses have real technical solutions. For instance, if you're worried about signing in because your credentials might be stolen, then we should get https: working. I've also heard that "signing in takes too long when I want to post a quick response". If the login adds so much time to the total time needed to post, then the login feature is astoundingly slow and needs technical help.

    There are technical options that would still permit anonymous posters to post without their being able to misbehave with impunity. The best, in my mind, would be updating nodes to allow the originator to assert "the anonymous user may not reply to this node" and make child nodes in the thread inherit this setting. This alters the posting model to be more like Twitter's - if I don't want you to see your posts, I block you, and you don't get to post on my threads. You may choose to block me in response. If you're the Anonymous Monk, you don't get to block anyone. If someone chooses to block the Anonymous Monk, they may do so; this means that any responders must sign in to post on that person's threads. This makes the situation self-regulating; people who love anonymous replies can have them, people who don't may choose to not have them. If someone doesn't feel like investing in a login to respond to a "no anonymous replies" node, then that is their choice. Every poster controls their environment - except the Anonymous Monk, who, because they have chosen the advantage of anonymity, loses the ability to block comments on their nodes. If a user's nodes automatically inherited their "allow anonymous responses" setting, that would be extra-nice, but I'd settle for checking a "disallow anonymous responses" box.

    So in this scenario, everyone wins. The people who dislike anonymous responses don't have to see them; trolls can be banned from one's threads simply by adding them to your block list, and people who prefer the older "anyone can say anything any way they want" can have that to just by leaving some boxes unchecked.

    The true lack here at Perlmonks is the will to find a way to make behaving badly difficult and unrewarding, and the empathy to realize that being on the receiving end of it is acutely painful. This is not a technical issue, but a cultural one - and as such, given the culture, is unlikely to change. There's no way for a motivated outsider to contribute a technical step toward preventing abuse of the Anonymous Monk without having been accepted into the site maintenance group - and the likelihood of this happening if someone has expressed dissatisfaction with the social dynamic is low.

    This is a technical suggestion; nonetheless, I expect a lot of emotional responses for the reasons I listed.

    TL;DR: In a conservative culture, it's practically impossible to effect change.

      You trivialize dissenting arguments as “excuses,” you ignore two major reasons anonymous posting is sensible: 1) low barrier to entry, 2) throwaway accounts are functionally anonymous anyway, you say we should get https working but have not offered to fix it or the clear text passwords, you left out the only sensible item put forward recently: separate anonymous posters from each other, you claim your cultural and social argument is purely technical, and you proactively paint any rebuttal as "emotional" instead of possibly rational and reasonable; this last one is why I reply and vote. This is the Internet. And the anonymous monk’s worst behavior does not even approach what passes for normal on Yahoo, YouTube, or any other site with major forums.

      tl;dr --

        This ^^.

        The Anonymonks here are making above average posts on the internet compared to people with pseudonyms or even real names attached. Removing them would make the world a worse place.

      this means that any responders must sign in to post on that person's threads.

      The fallacy there is that the OP owns the thread. But posters only own their own posts. At best, the poster could say she doesn't want anonymous replies to her own posts.

      Of course, this is just an engrained convention. We could change it, given sufficient "political will". I predict that perlmonks will never have it.

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

      ... new suggestion ...

      If you want real consideration of your inherit-alllowable-anonymous idea, a seperate "clean" monkdiscuss would yield better consideration/discussion ....

A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://1041268]
Approved by igelkott
Front-paged by bulk88
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (6)
As of 2021-04-18 12:38 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?