The Times silencing women

[MissLucyEyelesbarrow]

Like many GC women, I subscribed to the Times because of the excellent Janice Turner, but also because of the intelligent debate in BTL comments. Times readers are generally GC but transphobic or abusive comments are, quite rightly, deleted. It was one of the few places other than MN where an intelligent discussion could be had, and there are some insightful regular commenters. Meanwhile, the Times has claimed to champion free speech and to oppose diversity and inclusion policies, where they have a chilling effect on respectful freedom of expression.

Until now.

They have now suddenly brought in a policy that anyone commenting must do so under their full real name because...inclusion. Given their editorial stance to date, they are clearly well aware of the bullying and doxing of women who have GC views, so they have done this, knowing that it will silence most women.

So, once again, 'inclusion' actually means, 'Shut up, Women', It is so depressing. Have cancelled my subscription.

Miss L, you might find some like minded people here.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4692693-the-times-is-changing-its-comment-policy

And here

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4693005-the-times-are-stopping-anonymous-comments

I honestly think anyone criticising this policy is missing the big picture that below the line comments are a swamp of toxicity and negativity and can only be improved by making people put their real name to their comments.

Personally I also wish BTL comments had never been invented and prefer sites that don’t allow them, or keep them hidden. If I want to read a useful opinion I’ll read
the article itself!

It lets you use name and initial or change it to what you want. When you change it, it accepts any name / initial so you can use maiden name / Smith etc. yYou jut can't be Bunny99 or whatever.

Surely then you could post something awful on every article under the name of someone you don't like? I would never do this obviously it seems open to abuse.

Are you a Times subscriber? Their BTL debates are the best bit about the paper and a key reason why I subscribe. And the comments have been really important in swaying opinion about GC issues. Five or six years ago, Times articles about trans issues like TW in women's sports got dismissive comments, refusing to take the issue seriously. Slowly, a small number of excellent commentators, like Silver Lady, have made readers see the implications of self-ID, and the readership is now solidly GC.

I know I can (at the moment) but it's in breach of their policy, so they could withdraw my access at any time.

because...inclusion

It's not because inclusion. It's because being able to hide behind a pseudonym breeds animosity and offensive behaviour. I suspect the Times doesn't want to spend more money on moderation, and forcing people to use their names will cut down considerably on people being twats to each other.

This is not an attack on women.

I don't mind the Times' new policy. There are a few anonymous commenters on the Times who are, frankly, head-boilingly mad.

I’ve previously been a 30-day trial Times subscriber (and found it very difficult to unsubscribe!). But I generally find consuming news on my smartphone and computer to be stressful, and prefer picking up a print copy of the paper as and when. The existence of BTL sections is definitely part of what makes online news so unpleasant.

That said I do very much enjoy/agree with The Times’ gender critical columnists like Janice Turner.

They specifically say it's to improve inclusion.

No they don't.

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

Why are these changes being made?
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.

Why now?
The decision to make this change was made some time ago. We have been working through the policy and the technology for a little while. It is not in response to anything specific but we believe it will create a better environment for our readers to comment
^^
I have searched that page for "inclusion" and no results are returned.

The pop up that I received when I logged in said that the intention of the policy change was to "Improve inclusion".

And, like all forms of indirect discrimination against women, it may not be intended as an attack on us (I'm sure it isn't) but, by failing to take into account women's different circumstances - in this case our higher risk of bullying and losing our jobs as a result of being GC - it disadvantages us more than men.

There are many other measures that the Times could have taken instead, for example opening threads to comment for a limited period only, to make moderation easier.

Can you identify as a man and use that name?

</ducks>

Are you a Times subscriber? Their BTL debates are the best bit about the paper and a key reason why I subscribe. And the comments have been really important in swaying opinion about GC issues. Five or six years ago, Times articles about trans issues like TW in women's sports got dismissive comments, refusing to take the issue seriously. Slowly, a small number of excellent commentators, like Silver Lady, have made readers see the implications of self-ID, and the readership is now solidly GC.

Exactly this.

This is really annoying me too, especially unfair on those of us with a distinctive name. Sarah Smith can still post pretty much anonymously...

As I understand it, the purpose of this shift is so that the aggressors and rape/hate threters can't hide behind anonymity any more.

I don't think it's accurate or fair to say this is the Times "silencing women."

There are all kinds of arguments for and against allowing anonymous comments in newspapers. There was a time, long ago, when many newspapers would publish anonymous letters to the editor - that stopped in most cases back in the 1980's, or even earlier, mainly because allowing it meant certain kinds of distortions could happen - people writing for purposes other than what they seemed, people having an undeclared interest, people writing in as more than one person, and so on.

It's quite possible to disagree with this policy change without accusing them of motives that likely had nothing to do with the decision.

What they, and some other commenters, are missing though is that the POSITIVE benefits of anonymity/risks of having to use real names, especially for women/other vulnerable groups, are not necessarily related to what happens within ToL, but OUTSIDE of there. I don't care too much if some anonymous eejit calls me (another anonymous bod) a rude name on there, and gets themselves a deletion. I DO care if someone, who may not even be commenting themselves (and so can stay completely anon/hidden) identifies me by my name as having written a comment they disagree with, and uses it to try to get my employer to fire me/to dox me/for other harassment. So women and other groups are silenced (especially those with unusual names, which is particularly relevant for those at risk of racist/religious abuse), while would-be abusers benefit from the change.

Equally, some people have jobs where they are not allowed to be seen to be political or to comment publicly on certain topics - those people were fine to comment anonymously as private individuals and without reference to their role, but will now be silenced.

It seems like a good case for indirect discrimination to me, as those at most risk of victimisation (PCs of sex, race, religion, possibly disability,...) will be most negatively affected.

I am sure they are aware of the benefits of anonymous posting, that's likely why they have had it until now.

I've had to stop commenting as I have already been 'doxxed', a couple of years ago, and I promised the women's shelter I work for that I would never let myself be identified again.

I have been silenced. Those who chose to track me down and to threaten the safety of women in a crisis centre have not.

Some female academics I know are the the same position.

If your employer has been Stonewalled then expressing your belief that women's rights require the truth to be told, transwomen are all male etc, can become a disciplinary issue. Regardless of changes in legislation that can have a very real negative affect

The policy is ridiculous. I expect about 500 John Smiths are now unable to log in, as someone else has already registered their real name.
I have always posted on Times online as Dr, initial, surname. I don’t intend to reveal
my female Christian name.

The cancellation line is busy!

I can no longer comment. I risk losing my career due to GC views.

It's not a deliberate attack on women.

If women and men were treated equally and fairly in our society, everything you say would be reasonable. That is how it should be.

The reality is:

Women speaking in public receive abuse and vitriol that is more personal and far more sexual than men, especially when they speak in defense of women's rights

There are many examples of activists, including other colleagues, putting pressure on women's employers for any view that differentiates between the opportunities, patterns of behaviour, experiences, needs and rights of those born female and those born male

Activists wrongly frame women who hold such views as bigots motivated solely by prejudice and hate, leading to others in their social or professional groups who are not aware of what these women actually said, only these third party reports which are highly biased, to wrongly assume them to be saying genuinely hateful things and cutting ties.

Therefore, deliberate or not, it will nevertheless have the effect of silencing women just as effectively as if it was deliberately intended to.