The kicker here is that the change is retroactive. Apparently unwilling to part with the wealth of comments that are already posted on its web site under the old policy, but also, apparently, unwilling to configure its software so that comments posted before the new policy is implemented remain under the chosen screen names, the Standard announces that past comments will suddenly appear using the users’ real names unless users contact the paper no later than December 26 to ask that their comments be removed.
Seems pretty appalling:
The Standard’s editor … [stated] that it is publishing notice of its new policy, including the retroactive application, in both its print editions and web site, and that it “is sending emails to prior commenters, when it has valid email addresses.” … But depending on how long it has been since the Standard started accepting registrations, it is quite possible that users may have changed their email addresses, or have move on to a new email address without ever canceling the old one, and hence they might not see the Standard’s notice. And it is also quite possible that some of the commenters may have made comments that place their economic or even physical security at risk from the individuals or companies that they criticized in online comments. Or, their comments might have revealed something about their own experiences or past conduct that they were willing to share with the public anonymously, making a valuable contribution to a discussion, but would never have been willing to provide had they known that their own names would be attached. The Standard could be putting livelihoods and more at risk through its retroactive changes.
The newspaper editor, David McCumber, wrote the following to Paul Alan Levy and me:
A few things in response to your [i.e., Paul’s] very thoughtful, well-written blog post about our commenting decision:It is not that I am “unwilling to configure our software so that comments posted before the new policy is implemented remain under chosen screen names.” I extensively investigated that possibility and was unfortunately told by our content-management software experts that such a configuration is impossible.Based on that, I am trying to do what is most equitable to all of our readers.I believe that some of our challenges here are unique to community journalists. When a relatively small city is at the center of your market, just about everybody commented about is known, and the anonymous comments sting. I personally believe that very few of our readers are concerned about employers’ retaliation; I think that instead the relatively few posters who consistently offer destructive and noxious comments enjoy the cloak of anonymity in order to avoid community accountability. I believe that our site is and should be a community meeting place, and as such, rules of conduct should apply.That said, I am as ardent a believer in free speech as you are likely to find in this profession. I also believe in transparency and accountability.
In any event, this struck me as an interesting story, which I thought I’d pass along. See also the post by Wendy Davis (MediaPost) that, I believe, broke the story.
UPDATE: Paul Alan Levy has a follow-up post.