Add Your Photos and Video to This Story

OPINION: Anonymous (not verified) flittering around like roaches; it's a new world.

by dunkelberg | July 10, 2008 at 04:02 pm | 546 views | 34 comments

Frankly, I know very little about Truemors, though it sounds harmless enough. I don't know if it was its policy of anonymous posting and the pending sale that led to anonymous postings or not.

Many of you "Anonymous (not verified)" may feel unwelcome. Frankly, and I don't think I speak for myself, you are.

There is a code here for commenting and a flaming policy. Both of which often are ignored. However, when they are, there is accountability. Whether left, right, centrist or completely ambivalent, there is a modicum of respect, or at least attempts to enforce one.

Until you register and take on an accountable identity or conduct yourselves in a civil manner, I feel your welcome will continue to be cold, but only on a good day.

Cheers!

Flag this story

Upload

Make your good story a great story. Click here to add your photos & video to this story.

Crowd Power

Scan the web to add photos and videos to this story or add them from the NowPublic Archive.

mchawk

at 16:29 on July 10th, 2008

good stuff:

dunkelberg, I like this story. It's fighting-talk!

Good-on-you for calling this one. There's a part of me that's ok with Anonymous postings, if it gets more people involved in the site.

There's another part of me that wants a big red "delete" button on-hand every time I check my posts.

dunkelberg

at 17:27 on July 10th, 2008

I know what you mean.

"Delete" is a dangerous route, but its better than being driven off the cliff.

Honestly don't which is best. However, a delete for anon only might be a solution. To be fair, I guess is one went, they'd all have to go.

mchawk

at 10:16 on July 12th, 2008

I'm not so sure that they all have to go. The downside of a 'Delete' button is the potential for censorship, but adverts posing as commentary really have no place on this site.

Anonymous (not verified)

at 16:37 on July 10th, 2008

Good stuff

Vinny

at 16:40 on July 10th, 2008

good stuff:

Heres a second GS from me now I'm signed in!

dunkelberg

at 17:21 on July 10th, 2008

Thanks.

Take me to your leader.

Vinny

at 17:27 on July 10th, 2008

My leader would rather remain anonymous.

dunkelberg

at 17:35 on July 10th, 2008

[chuckle]

Touché!

Anonymous (not verified)

at 16:44 on July 10th, 2008

the only good thing about anonymous commenting is just how blazingly fast it is! try it. you'll see.

Anonymous (not verified)

at 16:46 on July 10th, 2008

I agree it's very fast perhaps there is no point in anyone signing in! (Vinny)

Anonymous (not verified)

at 16:56 on July 10th, 2008

You said it.

Vinny

at 08:08 on July 11th, 2008

The speed advantage of posting anonymous comments has gone today as now you need to choose a name and leave an email address, but there is still one great advantage of posting comments this way. When you choose a name you can make it link to your website unlike when you are signed in and your screen name links to your NP page. I am sure many would rather have the link to their site than gain ranking points I know I would.

PEP

at 17:05 on July 10th, 2008

Well heck. Why not just get yourself 2 or 3 IDs here, then also comment anonymously. You can flag yourself, comment favorably on yourself, and have a high old good time. Let's face it--some people in the past have had multiple IDs but pretty much, given that we got to "know" each other, they tended to get outed, or out themselves (other than two I know for sure about who routinely run 2 accounts here).

If we're going to have Anonymous here all the time now, might as well avail ourselves of the benefits offered to Anonymous, ya know? I mean, other than some "points" on a "Leaderboard," what's to gain from continued participation as one identifiable member here? De nada, folks.

Karen Hatter

at 16:48 on July 10th, 2008

good stuff:

Dunkelberg, I like this story. It's good stuff.

dunkelberg

at 17:33 on July 10th, 2008

Thanks, ma'am.

PEP

at 16:59 on July 10th, 2008

good stuff:

dunkelberg, I like this story. It's good stuff.

So, to post anonymously, sometime in the future (according to discussions in the newsroom), you'll need to fill out 3 info slots--if you want to. All 3? We don't know. And that's to save "overhead" time for people who don't want to sign up.

Sure, that makes really great logic. Here, don't waste your time filling out the incredibly simple NP form to join ONE time, just fill out the anon. comment form every time you post.

Whooo hah. Gee,you fill out the membership form, and maybe slap an avatar pix up there--but it's too much trouble? Yea, right.

Anonymous too, can ignore TOS or Flaming Policy, even as unevenly as it's applied, 'cause they're just blowing through. But--the extra action will up pageviews, and it'll look good on Alexa, stats, and PR releases, right? Look good for getting more funding, right?

If that's the goal, that's the goal.

But I think that allowing anonymous posters is a serious statement of disrespect toward contributors who've bothered to join and participate within the community. Just my opinion, though. .02 cents, with inflation, 0.00.

dunkelberg

at 17:32 on July 10th, 2008

Thanks for the flag at whatever cost. :-)

PEP

at 17:43 on July 10th, 2008

No cost. They're free around here. ;} And it's not white, anyway. heh heh

Anonymous (not verified)

at 18:38 on July 10th, 2008

What the heck, Pep, can you out me now? No fill-out required yet. and it is so blazingly fast to comment this way. I mean blazingly FAST!

PEP

at 18:44 on July 10th, 2008

Nope. Only staff, or their proxies, can do that. :)

Heritage

at 18:41 on July 10th, 2008

good stuff:

dunkelberg, I like this story. It's good stuff.

dunkelberg

at 06:14 on July 11th, 2008

Thanks.

Anonymous (not verified)

at 19:27 on July 10th, 2008

Dunk (you're not the Temple U. Dunkelberg, or are you):

Your analysis fails to take into account the fact that hackers and spoofers, some working for very sophisticated operations, public and private, can hijack IP data and make it look like the post came from a "registered" poster, when in fact it was a spoofer.

If you don't think that's true, note the major story on the tech sites yesterday and today stating that a glitch in the internet infrastructure allows hackers to spoof virtually any web site.

I registered with nowpublic.com this morning and by the afternoon, I was unable to log on with my user name and password. Somehow my account was hijacked. Meanwhile, my posted article was "updated" hours later, and not by me.

There may be forces trying to prevent certain opinions from being posted, and that could explain why there's so much spoofing and why the credibility of the net is suffering as a result.

Point being: Your analysis doesn't address the scope of the hacking/spoofing problem. I'd like to use my registration, but I can't. Someone, or some entity, won't let me exercise my free speech rights. And that makes a mockery of the First Amendment. Ultimately, it damages the medium and that's a shame.

Heiky

at 00:02 on July 11th, 2008

Not being able to sign in might be a bug, not a hijack problem. You might want to message http://members.nowpublic.com/jordan about your sign in issue.

As for updating, other members adding photos or videos to your story also counts as an update.