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.

Yes. The issue may be making your subscription payment method match. Would PayPal using a different name work?

Quite.

We all know that the most depraved and appalling of death and rape threats are absolutely dandy. It's stating reality and saying no to men that's the crime.

And TRAs/MRAs can say whatever they like, it's fine. Let them froth and threaten and let's discuss what they say, let's get it all out there. It's only the activists who are desperate to rush others to court and destroy them for what they have to say. It is only one side afraid of words.

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.

In a way that's more worrying. Who says they are applying the policy equally to everyone and to all topics and to all opinions? And if they are doing that now, who says they will keep doing that in future?

I’m in the same boat as @Igneococcus in terms of being Uniquely Named [in the UK] (& in my case, possibly globally: can we start a GFM to keep us in lavish style as endangered creatures?) so I’d be up a gumtree. DuoLingo decided that for some reason we should all share our first names rather than our usernames - no, no thank you. You may have a nickname & think yourself lucky is ulchabhán bulaíocht thú.

Was going to ask if @Jux’s suggestion of changing your email to [email protected] (if necessary resubscribing) would work for those who need to conceal their IDs. The content will still be subject to moderation & nobody here is after saying anything unreasonable much less illegal - indeed trying to protect yourself from the illegal actions of others is perfectly reasonable. Keeping yourself safe online includes not using your real name (& not using the same screenname across multiple sites unless you actively want them linked eg your TikTok/Insta/Twitter [or some combo thereof] or your Insta & Etsy if you can use the former to promote & boost the latter but don’t use the same name for your OnlyFans & your crochet Insta…). Women who’ve been stalked are of course advised that, as well as keeping accounts locked down & not posting pictures, using a pseudonym is a further protective measure.

Just a point.

You are supposed to do this already with Facebook.

The Times because it relies on payment for subscriptions makes that harder but not impossible.

Think about what happened with Elons new blue ticks.

The times will also be driven by the fact that it might well drive down subscribers.

I personally think as a subscriber you are traceable and accountable in a way that's not true of none subscribers.

It will particularly affect women, so it will be interesting to see how this pans out...

I’ve noticed the comments sections are becoming more and more toxic, and you mostly tell by the usernames that they are written by men. I’ve reported so many recently for sexist comments. So whilst I welcome using real names on the whole, it will be difficult for those women with uncommon names.

Many people are in situations where expressing even seemingly benign opinions can have feel life consequences. The quasi-anonymity of the internet does bring toxicity, but it also allows for a freedom of discussion that would otherwise be quashed. I personally would rather skip passed the posters with poor intentions rather than live in a world where people who are marginalized or living in restricted situations have fewer ways to express themselves.

this is just one business and it sets its own policies. I just hope the idea doesn’t take hold.

I haven't had this email yet, although I post under my real first name anyway.

People also often disclose personal info in comments, so even those with quite common names would be identifiable, especially over time. I've sometimes Googled people who use their real names (purely out of idle nosiness), and they have been easy to find, what with LinkedIn, Facebook etc.

However, it would be good to remove some of the downright nasty comments, as opposed to controversial views well argued. I read the Telegraph comments sometimes, and many are really nasty (and often promoting the Reform party, so I do wonder whether they are orchestrated).

Yes many comments get deleted usually GC ones. But I think the reason for this is that reporting a quote gets it automatically deleted - not by the mods but by the system. This has been very useful for those who don’t want GC opinions aired. You see a completely reasonable comment with hundreds of likes vanish. I’ve complained several times and it does seem to have got better.

Great idea in theory.

In practice it will obviously disadvantage those of us precariously employed, with unusual and or foreign names, working in captured industries. My hunch is that group is predominantly going to be female.

And miraculously it will appear as if not so many women mind about the loss of women's rights after all.

If you're a self employed woman (popular choice for those with caring responsibilities or who've suffered maternity discrimination) it doesn't matter that Maya won her tribunal when TRAs spam your website with negative reviews and bully organisations into refusing to work with you. Like they did to a woman who sold soap at markets, I believe.

There is so much sexism and quite a bit of the ‘well, it’s all women’s fault, really’ variety. You can pretty much tell the vein of the comments on some articles before you even open them.
I nearly quit the Times a while back because I didn’t want to be associated with a readership who commented in such a way. I was talked into staying with a cheaper deal. I am on my fourth cheaper deal I think (that is how many times I have tried to leave). The email today is the push I need to say no thanks.

I post under my name, and quite often post agreeing with the wonderful Janice Turner. Never had any pushback.

Given that research shows female people suffer more personal (and more sexual) abuse when speaking under their own names than male, this requirement impacts female people more than male, putting us at a disadvantage because of our sex.

Does this qualify as discrimination under the Equality Act 2010?

What about all the people with common names who post opposing views? Or will they do John1 Smith, John2 Smith etc?

My name is uncommon and I have never shyed away from using it in comments. The Times has stopped deleting GC comments because of the Maya case. I am willing to see how this goes because the trashy, sexist comments deserve to be minimised. Time to get back to better quality debate. Those who fear using their names, just find a comment that suits what you want to say and 'like' simples.

Some time since I posted but I pop in to read regularly

*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.

I have a very uncommon name too, (although it doesn't sound particularly outlandish) but I'm the only one on my professional register.

I have an unusual name. I also work for an organisation where feminists have been targeted and bullied for gender critical views. Surely this will effect women far more than men?

I have just emailed the Times, as follows:

Dear Sir,

I am deeply worried about your new policy, stating that people can only comment on the Times, if they use their real name.
This feels like censorship by the back door.
People will be wary of commenting on contentious topics, for fear that their opinions might lead to a backlash.

For example, if a gender critical feminist comments on the biological reality of two sexes, or objects to male-bodied individuals in women’s sex segregated spaces, sports, rape crisis centres etc, this could easily lead to them being doxxed, outed to their employer, or even receiving rape or death threats (tactics already used by trans rights activists, to silence debate).

The Times also has people who have specialist knowledge or experience in the subjects being discussed, and if the ability to post anonymously is removed, this may well deter them from sharing their knowledge and expertise - to the detriment of the comment sections.

This will particularly affect people whose name is more unusual - I know of very few people who share my surname, and it would be very easy for someone who objected to a comment I made, to find me, my address, my husband’s name and his employer - which could be used to make our lives very unpleasant.

And please note - I am not saying that you should allow people to post offensive or hateful comments with impunity - but that your new policy will deter people from challenging other people’s opinions on contentious current affairs at all.

The Times has a reputation for fearless and intelligent reporting, and I feel this extends to the comment sections, where Times readers can engage in robust, challenging, but respectful debate.

This will undoubtedly change, if you remove people’s ability to post anonymously, and I am asking you to reconsider this decision, please.

The good thing is that only subscribers can see comments. They can't be googled. So you should be at least save from nosy HR people 😂

The good thing is that only subscribers can see comments. They can't be googled. So you should be at least save from nosy HR people
Surely many companies and organisations have someone who trawls the press daily, and looks at reader reaction to issues that affect them? Or is it all automated now?

Women who post in the public eye are more likely to receive horrific abuse even on relatively benign topics. A friend of mine was hounded and had to have increased security at work due to a fairly innocuous post that got picked up by the tabloids. I have a work identity and never ever comment on anything other than work topics using my real name, if only because it dilutes that and I don't want employers/colleagues to see what I think about anything (so no personal Twitter for me). Public postings create huge problems for women, so this policy is ill-thought-through, I already receive the odd nasty email via work and that's plenty for me.

The Times is underestimating the amount of people whose real name is Spartacus.

In real life people don't use pseudonyms, they also don't use their real names, Question Time doesn't come up with people's full name, vox pox don't show people's full names etc.

Online (particularly when dealing with groups that are more likely to have autism) your name will be researched, your place of employment will be called up demanding that you are sacked etc.

This is an harassment charter.

Surely the solution is just to use a fake name. Like Mary Smith or something. What are they going to do? Ask for identifying documents? Send the police around? Fuck 'em. I'm Mary Smith.

I have a whole fake name and second email address that includes that name for just this situation