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.

I have a whole fake name and second email address that includes that name for just this situation
Do you have a fake bank account too to pay for the sub? Surely the computer program can just check against your bank account. Or will they not do that?

What do they care? Anyway it might be my rich benefactor that pays my subscription.

If they push me to do this (I haven't received an email yet) then I will just cancel my subscription and make it clear why.
I like the Times, and appreciate that they have aired gender critical views when many other mainstream newspapers didn't, but I'm not going to out myself for their benefit.
If they moderated properly, surely it shouldn't be necessary.

I don’t think that is the case, though. There is a share button next to the comments. So any comment can easily be shared beyond that one platform.

I never noticed this button until you mentioned it. So I tested it. Turns out you can share a comment but you can only view it if you are subscribed to The Times. There will be a pop up to sign up. I doubt people would go to great lengths to subscribe for one comment. Of course someone who is already a subscriber can screenshot your comment and share it but the only real danger would likely come from people who already subscribe. I am still not a fan of posting with my real name mind you. I am the only person in this country with this name. But most importantly, googling your name (like recruiters might do) will not result in your comments being advertised to the world.

Rachel Meade posted moderate comments on a private Facebook group. Didn’t stop another member reporting her to her employer and professional body.

Although I've a very common name so probably wouldn't be identified by it, I am going to cancel my Times' subscription I think this is a terrible idea.

I think I may have to stand up and be counted.

What I believe is not hateful. It does not deny trans women feel what they feel.

It is simply this.

That regardless of how one defines Woman, the thing trans women feel, which they name Womanhood, and the fact of having a female body and the physical and social consequences that has, are not the same thing

That our culture has been shaped by patriarchy and that gives advantages to male people

That female people have right and need to speak of the physical and social consequences of being female in this society, share our experiences, find common cause and work together as female people to have our voices heard, to make visible and challenge cultural biases and to support each other against those cultural threats and limitations

That those who assert the words TWAW are a material fact that gives trans women the right to anything designated "women only" are taking resources and support that were put in place to mitigate those consequences from the female people who need them and giving to male people who do not

If I say nothing, if I accept being silenced, my silence about what I believe leaves a space that those who have silenced me can fill with lies about what I believe to justify what they do.

I can, if it comes to it, lose my job and be OK. Many others are not so lucky. So I have to speak because these things need to be said.

Moderation is a minefield. You can't moderate for a slow drip drip of thinly disguised bile. The Times comments are toxic on anything to do with race/teenagers/schools/benefits so I think using your real name is a good thing. I cancelled my membership because the comments were so relentlessly unpleasant. It's a shame that women might feel unable to comment on trans issues but there it is.

It's a bit more than a shame.

It effectively silences women from defending their rights while creating the impression that women are happy to hand their rights over to a bunch of misogynist nutjobs.

It is enabling the subordination of females to males on the basis of sex, but to happen very naicely under the illusion of it all being so very modern and progressive.

I agree, it's very frustrating to realise that there are so few places that women can talk openly about this. And by talking openly, I don't mean posting hateful content like name calling and slurs, I mean accurately describing male sex offenders and crossdressers as male.
Apparently, to some people that is deemed hateful. So ridiculous.

This. Women lose freedom of expression (more so than men, because they are more penalised for GC comments) because of male abusive behaviour.

I commented on articles twice today under my pseudonym and it didn't stop me, not sure how they are enforcing this?

I don't get why it can't be moderated in a normal way.

My surname is relatively common but I will still take care in what I post now.

It is very interesting (and not at all surprising) to note how many of the commentators now appear to be men.

Rose Wild is talking about the response in the Times today and it pisses me off:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/04b7c8ec-7d7c-11ed-8486-22782b7fe87b?shareToken=007c0dbb1a64df45db9aa7cee08d7ef2

"Some women have complained of being silenced. It is hypocritical, one said, “when you have repeatedly run articles highlighting the bullying of women who express gender-critical views, to bring in a real-names policy which will exclude women from being able to comment freely”.
I trust this won’t happen. It is unlawful, as Maya Forstater has established in court, for employers to discriminate on the ground of gender-critical beliefs. If anyone were to be victimised at work on the basis of a comment that met Times community guidelines, they would have a very strong case for action.

Well Rose Wild has more trust in people's lawfulness than I have.

Yeah - good to know that if you are discriminated against at work and have to take it to an Employment Tribunal you would win but that's a bundle of laughs isn't it?

Union won't support you? Never mind, hope for crowd-funding to take the union to court for discrimination too.

Great fun!

What a stupid woman!

Has anyone else now had their commenting rights revoked? I emailed them but got a shirty response.

I've stopped paying. I can live without the paper, not very interesting when I knew I couldn't comment on stories.

I have always commented under my real name, but as title, initial and surname, so
it isn’t obvious I’m female. Misogynist bias usually assumes Dr F Bloggs to be male!

I checked. Your last name must be the one you registered with and it is the name on the bank card you subscribe with. You are allowed to use the initial of your first name, but it must spell out your full name correctly.
For those with a distinct and unusual surname this is outing. And is discrimination of people with gender critical beliefs.

Yeah. Up until a week ago I was able to post but they have come down hard now and nobody is allowed to post comments without outing themselves.

I've always felt having a system with your real name then a pseudonym was a bit dicey. It's very hard for them to justify. The The Telegraph has always had something closer to what the Times has brought it. That's how I understood it when I signed up to both.

You used to always have to write it with your real name to a paper, and you could always ask for them to remove it if published.

I feel really mixed about their policy but it is their platform and their decision. And you could always write in properly and ask to be kept anonymous if published.

Yes.
It’s not only outing to GC people but discriminates against those who want anonymity having been victims of domestic abuse. If you are going through court proceedings or have a stalkerish ex, it’s better to have a level of anonymity to comment.