NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: New Facebook Feature Empowers the Dangerous "CommentNazis"
|
RE: New Facebook Feature Empowers the
Dangerous "CommentNazis"
Hi, Lauren. Nice piece on the Facebook
"CommentNazis." Having not yet read it, I subitted, on March 4th, the
following piece to the Vallejo Times-Herald newspaper (a Media News Group
publication) in Vallejo, California, as a reader-opinion. I've received no
reply.
Interestingly, I also posted a version of it as a comment on
the FAQ page of the newspaper's web site where it explains its new
have-to-have-a-Facebook-account comment posting policy, here:
Today I looked for it and it was gone, so I just posted it
again... along with my asking at its beginning why it was removed, and if the
newspaper could not withstand the critique. It'll be interesting to see if
it's still there by the time that you, or those to whom you forward this, view
that page. If it's not there, your/their demanding to know what happened
to it would be interesting!
You're free to publish/distribute this email
message however you want.
----- BEGIN PIECE SUBMITTED TO VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD on
3/4/2011 -----
I think I understand one huge reason why this
newspaper has gone to the requirement of readers having to have a Facebook
account in order to post comments beneath articles on its web site.
It helps to eliminate the anonymous vitriol that we used to see in the Topix
comments. By requiring that the commenter have a Facebook account, his/her
words become part of said commenter's permanent Facebook record and glimpse into
his/her very life for the entire world to see... that is, if they check the box
which allows the comment to be posted to their Facebook wall. But even if
they don't check that box, the Facebook requirement nevertheless makes them
identifiable; and so their comment becomes part of this newspaper's permanent
record, even after the article expires from being freely readable into this
newspaper's archive (sadly, behind its paywall).
Such identifiability ultimately makes one think twice about
what they write... the very definition of what the journalists and editors
at this newspaper understand well to be what's called "prior restraint."
Prior restraint is anathema to a free press.
As a civil libertarian (not to be confused with the
Libertarian political party... I'm a lifelong progressive/liberal Democrat), I'm
deeply troubled by how this new Facebook account requirement chills anonymous
free speech.
Since the founding of this nation, the posting and handing-out
of anonymous bills, flyers, notices, complaints, demands for redress, and other
forms of First-Amendment-protected free speech have been at the very core this
nation's greatness. Without the ability to nail anonymous calls to
action onto trees, or the sides of buildings 300 years ago (and ever
since), the American Revolution, itself, might not have been adequately
organized, and so the United States, as we now know it, might not today
exist.
I make this clarion call for anonymity even though I
have been the victim of some of the most vile and horrible things having
been written about me by anonymous cowards in various places around the
Internet over the years (in largest measure as a response to my activism, and
the pimps, human traffickers, and degree- and diploma-mill operators I've helped
to put in jail). I also say/advocate it as a person who wrote an article
in 1995 that was published in about a dozen newspapers and journals -- including
on a large Time-Warner web site -- which called for there to be no
anonymity on the Internet so that people would only post responsibly; or be
accountable if they didn't.
However, I've since come to understand that I was wrong, back
then. Anonymity is absolutely essential to the survival of a democratic
republic like ours. This newspaper's relatively new requirement of its
article commenters having to have a Facebook account flies in the face of
anonymous free speech. It decidedly chills it. As a publication
which so relies on the First Amendment for its very existence, I am surprised by
this new policy.
I'm also bothered -- almost offended -- by the fact that
commenters words disappear behind the paywall along with the article.
Previously, with Topix, at least the comments survived for all to read, more or
less forever. By eventually disappearing the comments behind the paywall
along with the article, and then allowing them to be seen
thereafter only by those who pay, this newspaper is financially
benefitting from the words of its commenters (which help to enliven and
enrich the story) without just compensation to them. Of course, I
also believe that comporations who put their logos and slogans onto T-shirts
should be sending checks to those who wear them, so perhaps I'm a
stickler.
It pains me, in any case, to say that I'd almost
rather see the vitriol here... and for it to survive to be freely read,
even after the newspaper has converted the article into part of its revenue
stream. At least then, I'd know that public comment speech, here, is still
free.
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com
----- END PIECE SUBMITTED TO VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD on
3/4/2011 ----- _____________________________ Gregg L. DesElms 895 Jackson St., #319 Napa CA 94559-1321 PHONE: 1-877-383-5148
FAX: (206) 984-1288 EMAIL: gregg@greggdeselms.com |