The Times are stopping anonymous comments

[Ch3wylemon]

Just that. They have changed their comment policy and soon subscribers will only be able to comment in their real name.

I appreciate there is a valid argument about owning your comments, but there are also potential harms arising. Especially to women - death & rape threats for having the wrong beliefs anyone? I can't help thinking it will reduce free speech.

Separately, as a health care professional with a professional social media presence, I keep my political views and feminist activism away from my public posts. Patients don't need to know my views they have no bearing on how I treat them.

Personally, if I can't comment under a pseudonym I will no longer post. It seems such a shame as the ability to comment under articles by Janice Turner and other brilliant writers has helped the debate to reach a wider audience. It feels like a backwards move.

Think it is a terrible idea. Someone could use someone else’s name to subscribe

Much simpler to not bother with the Times, really. This is a commercial, not ideological decision. Probably connected with the current crackpot ideas about banning nasty things from the internet currently coming around (again) from the UK government.

Who remembers the campaign by Nadine Dorries to ban three letter abbreviations ? I can't believe it got as far as a green paper until someone spotted that it could be the first law in human history that was itself illegal. (It wasn't covered in the Times, either, which is another reason not to miss them).

I just used random letters from the keyboard to register
So qetfcfyu giihredvv or something

Could still register fine

Thank you, I had no idea my "screen name" was in the account settings (I've had the subscription for years too) so I've changed that before the date you mentioned.

What are the rules when commenting on The Times website?

An update to The Times and The Sunday Times commenting policy

From December 13 The Times and The Sunday Times will require subscribers to use their real names when participating as part of the commenting community.
If you currently comment under a pseudonym, you will need to change your screen name to your real name, under My Account. You must use your surname in full. Your first name should either be your full first name, or a commonly recognised variation or the initial of your first name.

Full article:
www.thetimes.co.uk/help/articles/what-are-the-rules-when-commenting-on-the-times-website

Yeah but how will they know your real name

Are they asking for ID?

This is awful. I will definitely stop commenting and will probably cancel my subscription.

Haven't heard this directly from the times though.

Would ypu break the 'rules' and use a false name or has this put you off them completely ?

There are some dreadful posts /posters who deserve to be kicked off - but presumably as "paying subscribers" the Times doesn't want to lose the income. They're hoping names will reduce this.
The numerous GC articles are now well commented on - many hundreds, at times thousands of comments with countless, evidently male posters, having educated themselves - so that takes the pressure off women as it's no longer up to us to explain or analyse. BUT - if you're easily identifiable name wise, then it's a risk given the embedded bullying and harassment that comes from trans activists.

Will my previous/old comments now have my real name attached to them?

If you update your screen name to be compliant with our 'real name' definition on or after December 13 any new comments from this date will be posted under your new screen name. Your historical comments will be locked under the screen name that you held on or before December 12.

What if I want to keep continuity in my screen name?

If you want to keep the continuity of your screen name across your comments published before and after December 13, then we advise that you update your current screen name by Sunday December 11 to comply with our ‘real name’ definition.
+++++++++++
So if you haven't already changed your screen name your new "freedom to be doxed" screen name will not be linked to old comments.

However, I've heard that when some GC women contacted The Times with concerns that, without notice and not on request, The Times deleted all their previous comments so they have completely lost all their posting history plus they have been locked out of their accounts.

Has anyone else had this happen?

Hell in the 'olden days' when one wrote to the Times they printed your name AND full address! I had a humorous letter printed and got a rather bizarre letter from a man interested in a sailor suit for a 6' bloke...

But it was the comments of Jo March, Silver Lady et al, which shifted opinion.

The effect of this policy change will be that, the next time there is an important issue of this type, women will not be able to talk about it.

There is a reason why commentators (apparently) already using their own names are overwhelmingly male.

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?

Cheeky bump as it would be great to hear from anyone knowledgeable on the above question 😁

I spoke to the Times cancellation team a while as my membership was up for renewal and I told them that one of the reasons I was considering cancelling was the “real names” comment policy. The person to whom I spoke said that not only have they had a LOT of negative responses over the change of policy, but that it’s currently “being reviewed internally”. Now, whether that means they’ll decide to go ahead with it and crack down harder (I have kept my pseudonym and I can still comment) or whether they’ll quietly drop it I don’t know, but they DO know it’s massively unpopular.

I have a male twitter account and always sign up to websites as my husband. I find it so much less stressful. I don't get anywhere near the abuse I used to get when I posted as myself. We have a very common surname as well which makes it easier. Perhaps you could do something like that? Or leave a letter or 2 out of your surname and just use your initial so you're not as identifiable.

I thought I'd got away with it as I was using part of my name at least, but no, first email I get is telling me I'm banned from commenting.
So that's going to be a chat with the subscription people.

I have always commented in my real name, but as Dr.F. Bloggs (for example) nobody can tell I’m female. I have been steadfastly and firmly GC, and so far have had huge support from fellow commenters, rather than abuse.
I accept that, being retired, I don’t face the risk of hassle at work from tra colleagues, and understand why this is a potential problem for women employed in woke affected organisations though.

I also had an email (I was already using my first initial and part of my surname).

I think they are probably struggling to reinforce it. I actually cancelled my subscription because I also have a rare surname but am still able to comment for some reason. For now anyway. So I spelled out my surname but made a "typo" by omitting a random letter. So far they haven't cottoned on to it.

I've had an email telling me I can't comment anymore and I will cancel my subscription because of this. I've got a unique name in the UK and if I google my name the top 14 results are actually me. I looked at a few random btl commentators (checked their number on publicrecordsearch.co.uk and googled their names) and not a single one is as immediately identifiable as I am.

It's wrong that women feel they can't comment because of the risks but there's no doubt that the tone below the line has shifted with far less abuse generally. Looking at recent comments under key articles, there are now hundreds of people commentating insightfully about what's happening

When the wonderful Jo March stopped posting I was devastated - she was brilliant & did so much to educate commentators. But others stepped in and the informed discussions continued to grow and it's not stopped. Think I'm trying to say that maybe the words of all those brilliant women commentators are less needed as so many now understand IYSWIM?

Has the tone shifted?

I notice that:
a) nearly all the commentators are now men
b) the Times still has to keep comments shut off on articles that attract misogyny, e.g. anything about fashion/beauty.

You may be misgendering (oh, the irony!) some of the commenters, MissLucy. I use an initial, and I recognise many previous female posters who have done the same.
For example, S Henderson used to have the pseudonym Morag MacDiarmid, and Kashmiri girl now uses an initial and surname. Some women also post on their husband’s email account, and vice versa.
The women who post GC comments get huge support, often running into hundreds of “recommends”. The tra brigade seem to consist of merely a couple of regular trolls.

MissLucyEyelesbarrow
I'm basing that comment about tone on the political articles where I thought there are now far fewer deletions and evident abuse. But I might be wrong.

Ok, nearly all the commentators whose sex can be discerned are men. I’d put it at 90% on most articles.