The Times is Changing its Comment policy

[Igneococcus]

I just got this email:

" Dear XXX,
We are writing to let you know that from December 13 it will be our policy for digital readers of The Times and The Sunday Times to comment on articles using their real names. We believe this is the best way to ensure high-quality participation.
As we would expect from our readers, conversations on our digital platforms can be thought-provoking and intelligent. We know you will not always agree with us and we welcome robust conversation and unique perspectives. Smart debate can also help to inform future story ideas.
The Times view is that you should know who you are speaking to, rather than debating with a pseudonym. We want to present an alternative to social media, where animosity is too often protected by anonymity.
The quality and civility of debate on The Times and The Sunday Times platforms sets us apart. We value immensely the support of readers who are helping to keep our standards high."

That will kill any discussion for contentious issues like trans issues.
I can sort of get where they are coming from but I'm the only person with my name in the whole of the UK, so if I post under my real name I stand out a lot more than, for example, a Jane Smith does.

How odd. It's like a throwback from the 90s written by someone who doesn't know how the internet works. Are they simply hoping that people won't comment much anymore?

Are they trying to get ahead of the law of the Online Satety Bill to make posters hold themselves and their full views back in contentious areas?

I moderated a professional forum in the late 90s/ early 2000s which had this rule. It was tumbleweed.

I already do but use initials and maiden name, interesting to see if I need to update!

Will they change names retrospectively?

What immediately came to mind for me was Chimamanda in the Reith lecture suggesting a way forward in social media would be for people to have to use their real names? Could they be basing it on that?
I'm not saying that's a good idea, especially in the climate as it is (it would certainly hold me back)- just that this came to mind

The Times seems to have a largely reasonable stance on genderism and women's rights. So is it worth asking how they think this will impact on comments on articles dealing with these subjects, given the abuse, threats, doxxing and so on routinely meted out by the TRA side?

I think it's a good idea. The Times comments are absolutely toxic.

My thoughts exactly.

I couldn't post under my real name as it would impact my ability to work. I've already been in a list of women to rape, which is why I have gone anonymous online. Unless they can offer protection from screenshotters, which they can't, this just stops people posting. Most of those people will be women.

In theory I like the idea. In practice it's unworkable, because it's not simply posting on their page, it's posting in an public, international forum that their page belongs to.

From a tech point of view I'm curious as to how they're going to police this. Is it based on the name your subscription is in? How difficult would it to be to change that?

It will shut down most conversation on contentious topics. Surely if you have talk guidelines you can easily ban anyone who doesn't adhere to them. I wonder if it's to reduce the burden of moderation.

I can't comment on TOL comments but insisting on real names will provide a real world contrast (before and after) in preference falsification.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4382551-Live-not-by-lies-Solzhenitsyn-no-tambourines-involved?reply=112699945&utm_source=reply&utm_medium=share

See also a recent addition to that thread that discusses an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship.

hxstem.substack.com/p/from-russia-with-love-science-and

This may not apply to commenting on all Times' articles, but could if for instance the subject was a country where people are at threat of violence from the state or armed activist, or where it is illegal to be gay or lesbian or abortion is illegal.

In principle I think it is the ideal, but in practice it will many fewer comments because as we know you can lose your job for posting gender critical comments and suffer threats of violence. And for people in countries where annonymity is vital this seems hopelessly ill informed by the rarified world of after dinner chit chat.

Surely the Times as a newspaper must be aware of the implications for some.

My understanding of the email is that we are asked to update our details & change our screen names....so I could just be Joe Bloggs? Or perhaps Spartacus...

Interesting decision. I already write all my GC comments under a real name - but it’s my husband’s as the subscription is his. So he sometimes wakes to a surprising volume of mails from the Times and comes to breakfast wondering what he has been up to in his sleep!

I received this and looked at changing my name as my last name is unusual, however you’re required to call them about it. I doubt they’re going to allow me to do it.

Dh comments on the Times quite regularly, and says they have said they are doing this before, and a few people changed their names, but most didn't - and carried on posting pseudonymously, with no come-back.

It says if you don't change it then you'll be contacted by someone

And the fact that this has a chilling effect on free speech? And they know it.

Many of us would love to speak out openly. We know - eventually - we'd be protected in law too in a court room.

But on the way to that justice we'd lose our homes, jobs and income.

Hail the fucking fourth reich right here in the establishment of the UK, I have really had enough of this shit.

I have an unusual surname - probably unique in the UK. I comment regularly in the Times on trans issues from a GC point of view in my own name. I was very apprehensive initially but it has not been a problem at all. I think it’s more likely to be an issue for the few nutty trans activists that comment.

Although I have a Times subscription, I stopped commenting quite a while ago because a large percentage of my, pretty innocuous, comments were not passing review by the mods and not getting posted. Others might get through but later on would get deleted. This means that I rarely look at the comments now. It also means that the stickiness of my engagement with the Times is much less.

But it's so easy to set up an email using a pseudonym, say Petra Vigilinus, (not one I use, just made it up) and then sign in with that. I use what looks like a real name for The Times but isn't actually so doesn't identify me.

The identification thing goes both ways, too, so rabid TRA/MRAs would be as identifable as anyone else.

Just checked their policy on a ‘real name’ which is surname in full and first name or initial. I already have that (surname and initial). It’s fine for me as my surname is very common but I think I would feel uncomfortable posting if it was an unusual surname.

Not when you already have a paid for subscription rolling though

“The identification thing goes both ways, too, so rabid TRA/MRAs would be as identifable as anyone else”

Problem is, I’ve never seen death/rape/doxxing/hurt your family type threats issued to TRAs, but we know they are an all too common response to views informed by biological reality