The Times is Changing its Comment policy

I’ve reported the speed recovery post as advertising/spam.

I don't see how it's not covered by the EA. You're paying for something, and that something is to be able to read articles and discuss them with other subscribers.

Women are disproportionately affected by having to use their real name because women who do so (on any topic) are about 10 times more likely to be victim of men making threats etc.

Women who do not believe in gender identity, and/or who are lesbian, even more so.

I tried to argue with them when I messaged them that it was against the spirit of the Equality Act in relation to my sex, sexual orientation and disability, but they didn’t take any notice, and I presume they’ve had legal advice on it. But I would be interested to know too.

I posted this on a previous thread about the same thing, but didn't really get a direct reply - would still be interested in thoughts by more knowledgeable people though:

I would be interested if any legal bods on here could clarify - is the Times (&/or newspapers generally) covered by the Equality Act as a provider of goods/services? Would instituting policies that indirectly discriminate against women/people with specific beliefs or religions/on racial grounds (thinking of people with "foreign-sounding"/unusual and easily-identifiable names, and/or commenting on race issues) put them on dodgy ground legally, or does this not apply to them?

One of the things I like about the Spectator is you can use a pseudonym. I'm also not called Rebecca

Yes, I'm another one who comments on fairly bland things, but on matters in which I have great knowledge (a niche legal area) I wouldn't comment under my own name.

Therefore, when, they cover my niche area, they get comments from men which are rubbish, I don't correct them. So what is the point of a lot of ignorant and incorrect comments? (Clearly, there will be some other niche-specialist people who do correct misconceptions)

Obviously, also, I do not want to be doxxed by posting anything gender, critical

I made the point to them that as I, like many here have an unusual, foreign origin, surname, it is indirect discrimination against those with foreign connections. They ignored this point. If I were Poppy Smith, it wouldn't be a problem, but with my surname I'm not going to risk posting anything controversial .

I do question why they bother having comments now, when they know that a large number of their subscribers cannot, or will not, comment any more.

I think that’s true @MissLucyEyelesbarrow but that issue affects women too plus the extra issue of the women’s rights stuff. I miss those sort of comments too.

I'm not sure. I think the policy silences a lot of men too, just not so much on trans issues.

Prior to the policy change, you got a lot of comments from people who clearly had senior inside knowledge, on articles about - for example - the Civil Service, Government, and the NHS. The comments were frequently more interesting and informative than the actual articles. Now all that has been lost because, unless you are a John or Sarah Smith, it would be career suicide to comment.

Phone up to cancel. When they ask why tell them it's coz the name policy.
I did. They let me change my comments name.
However someone in the mods team is deleting my likes and comments. I have them screenshotted and I'm going to call up again and complain.

There is value in knowing you're consistently speaking to the same person, and in preventing sockpuppet accounts from creating a false impression (incl. bots). But neither of those require a real name. And if commenting on Times Online requires a subscription, then both of those are already done.

Perhaps someone could make an alternative forum where people can comment on Times articles. A reddit forum is the easy candidate. Imagine if all the real discussion on Times articles took place off their own site?

I have tried different abbreviations to no avail.

Using my username as example, I have tried A Hope, Ava H, A H, AH, Av H, and they have all been rejected. Other users have been able to abbreviate but I haven't.

I don't know who to write to to complain.

I pretty much assume people posting with just a first initial are women.

I use just my initial and surname, I do comment occasionally, but much much less and only on fairly dull and uncontroversial subjects! I say very little on my experience of cancer, although I have a huge range of knowledge from doing so much reading. I don’t think I comment on any of the feminism or trans posts anymore.

IANAL, but I don’t think the Times will be subject to the EA as regards its readers (as opposed to its employees), as I don’t think the services it provides fall within the EA’s remit.

This may be an example of a policy which has a disproportionately negative effect on one sex. I wonder if The Times can show it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?

19 Indirect discrimination
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/19

This is what they’ve said.

‘I am sorry to hear that you wish to cease your subscription due to the changes with commenting rules.

The Times view is that you should know who you are speaking to, rather than debating with a pseudonym. We don’t want animosity protected by anonymity. We believe this is the best way to ensure high-quality participation.’

Even if I abbreviated as my first name is Asian and my second name another heritage. I even googled my name it came up with my business website etc and then the Canadian me!

I responded to their email telling me to change my name that I can’t continue to post under my real name. Bizarrely if I used my maiden name there are also very few of us. As my actual first name is from another Asian country of origin so combined both my names are unusual.

Im kind of at a loss as to how to continue. Yes I’ve noticed more men too.

it feels like I’ve been silenced.

I have susbcription through work and had previously commented extensively. But now I don't want to comment anymore. My name is also unique given my heritage and my Linkedin profile is public for work and career opportunities.

So I don't want to be identified neither do I want my views to be associated with my workplace. I found some people were able to abbreviate their first name or surname and I have tried the same but unsuccesfully. Truly gutted.

Make sure you tell them why. I've noticed they have a lot fewer articles behind their paywall recently, so I suspect they may be struggling to maintain subscriber numbers and are trying to generate revenue via clicks instead. I wonder how many subscribers they have lost because of the new policy?

When I can read comments now (via share tokens etc), they are overwhelmingly from men.

The Times readership is now well and truly trans-peaked, but this wasn't always the case. When articles about trans issues first started to get published about 9 years ago, the BTL comments were Be Kind or (presumably from men) 'this is of no importance'. It was the patient persistence of commentators like Silver Lady and Jo March who got readers to understand the problems, and swung them to being GC. This was crucial in holding back self-ID: I believe that, without Janice Turner and, in particular, her interview of Maria Miller, self-ID would have been gone through It wasn't just Janice's brave articles, it was the comments of the (now GC) readership that helped the Tories to realise the electoral toxicity of self-ID.

Now, though, women have been largely silenced.

I’ve now decided to cancel
my subscription as I can’t comment as I use real life experiences. Being of Asian heritage (but married into another culture) I have an unusual name and surname combination (I think there are two of me in the world (one a Canadian). Therefore I need to just quit commenting or quit the subscription. Gutted.

Well put. I'm a doctor and used to comment on healthcare topics. I can no longer do so, as I work in quite a sensitive role, and can't be seen to comment publicly on NHS policy.

That’s another thing that I liked, hearing from people with a range of professional experience. I know it will be much more unwieldy, but why don’t they just insist people use their real names if they’ve been previously deleted a number of times. It’s unfair to restrict us all because of the behaviour of a few.

It's like a reverse quality filter, where the closer something is to your own life the less likely you are to comment, leaving the debates to be dominated by to those who know and care the least

Well put. I'm a doctor and used to comment on healthcare topics. I can no longer do so, as I work in quite a sensitive role, and can't be seen to comment publicly on NHS policy.

Wow, I hadn't even thought about how people with relevant real life experiences of topics are also going to be discouraged from commenting by this policy.

It's like a reverse quality filter, where the closer something is to your own life the less likely you are to comment, leaving the debates to be dominated by to those who know and care the least.

I’ve just been stopped from posting and have emailed them making many of the points on this thread. I’m worried that if anyone spots me it could affect my work in a very woke sector. I also comment on articles about cancer as a cancer survivor, but I don’t want to tell everybody that I’ve had cancer either. If I remain banned, I will probably let my subscription lapse.