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.

A woman I know who has a very unusual name phoned The Times customer help line and had a chat to them about all the reasons (as cited by PP) that she should not use her real name and why women should not be forced to use their real names. For her they did not include stalking but she explained that this can become an issue at some point so it is important to be anonymous from the start.

She said that she had a long conversation with what sounded like a young man who was very sympathetic. They ended up agreeing an alternative "real name" that was a woman's name made up of a common first name and last name.

It's not an ideal outcome because they very likely landed on a name shared by many women, one or more of whom might be misidentified as the author of her comments. This could cause problems for any such misidentified women.

It could also cause problems for the subscriber if she is misidentified as someone else.

This made me wonder about another unintended outcome of forcing people to use their real names.

The more common a real name then the more likely it is to be duplicated and also shared with women who are not subscribers.

The dual purpose of a Pseudonym is to be both anonymous and also, if possible, unique, so as to avoid confusion between actual subscribers. If there is more than one "Anne Smith" commenting, for example.

At the moment I really can't be arsed phoning The Times Customer Service to walk them through all this. If anyone else feels like doing it then you could add these issues to the list of things they really should have thought about if they wanted to get and keep women subscribers.

Like you, I’m not prepared to jump through hoops, to prevent the Times removing the anonymity on which my freedom of expression depends. They have shown that they don’t give a toss about retaining my custom - so be it.

I saw a comment online that someone rang up to cancel based on this, and got a huge discount on their next six months subscription if they stayed.

I don't know what decision they made in the end.

I think I had been through about three or four six month discounts by phoning and trying to cancel over the last five years for various reasons. The change in policy gave me a reason to be a bit more assertive in my desire to cancel. I am a single parent and I have better things to do with the subscription money (and my time). I also found an anti-woman tone in many of the comments, particularly around some things like the pay gap where you found yourself stating the obvious to people (men) who really didn’t care about the systematic disadvantage women face, including those without children.
What will happen is more of these types of comments will proliferate as there are fewer women to put the alternative views forward.

So true @Ameadowwalk, it is startling how the vast majority of the commentators' names are now male names. Women have, literally, been silenced.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.’

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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