Following strong feedback and a healthy discussion at Thursday’s coffee as well as a handful of emails received on the topic, NewCanaanite.com starting now will require those commenting on articles to use full first and last, verifiable names.
The site-wide change comes directly from our readers, whose thoughts and feedback I value deeply.
At a reader’s suggestion, we had put the very same policy in place for election-related stories only following the July caucuses.
Comment threads on NewCanaanite.com have always been “gated,” meaning comments have required manual approval from me to show up at all. I also have always insisted on knowing the identity of each commenter and having an open line with him or her through email. In some cases, I required that those making especially pointed remarks use their full first and last names, or else temper their comments prior to publication.
Under this new, reader-suggested policy, that thinking is reversed: We will start by requiring everyone to use full and verifiable names, and I will make special exceptions when warranted. I honestly don’t know what those exceptions might be—perhaps if someone has a respectfully stated and pertinent comment but fears for his or her personal safety if attached to it. I would ask that anyone who wants to post a specific comment under anything less than a full first and last name email or phone me directly to explain why (editor@newcanaanite.com and 203-817-1278).
Once I have a better idea of how this will go, we will flesh out an official policy and post it somewhere visible on the site—another suggestion that came from a reader at the coffee on Thursday.
The clear majority of readers who shared their thoughts on this topic feel that what may be lost by removing a cloak of anonymity for some is outweighed by what we lose already when negative, judgmental comments are posted under incomplete usernames.
Some voiced support for preserving the status quo with respect to aliases, saying that doing away with them may stifle conversation on the site, and that many people who may otherwise respectfully state their thoughts will be afraid to do so now for fear of retribution in some other part of their lives.
Points made in favor of the change include that granting anonymity gives commenters room and permission to be uncivil, unfairly and unnervingly opens those who are the subjects of news articles to criticisms from unknown sources and engenders mostly negative comments that harm the overall tone of what could be constructive discussion.
I’ll gather up data about comments submitted, gauge reader feedback and we will revisit this discussion next month. The coffee will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, Nov. 2 in the Lamb Room at New Canaan Library. Those who wish to attend may email me for an invitation.
I concur Mike. In my opinion our Town will be better with this policy.
All the best.
I agree Michael. This is well-thought-out and is in every reader’s interest.
I disagree completely. This new policy will discourage people from posting their thoughts/opinions which is basically a suppression of the first amendment, freedom of speech. As long as Mr. Dinan has properly screened the responses and knows that they come from “real” people and are not meant to be harmful or hurtful there is absolutely no reason to publish a person’s full name unless that person wants to have their full name published. As previously stated, this will discourage people from giving/offering their opinion(s) by fear of retribution in one form or another. Mr. Dinan already only publishes comments that pass his personal screening as he has stated and that should be enough to promote free speech and a meaningful discourse of ALL opinions whether or not one agrees with it/them. And no, as a former town employee, I don’t my full name being published for this posting.
Nick if a person is seeking confidentiality through a username that is not a full first and last name, then I just need to hear his or her reason. If the reason is fear of retribution in some way, then I think that’s fair enough, especially given that the town itself granted confidentiality for that very reason in conducting interviews through the Charter Revision Commission.
As long as they pass your scrutiny that they are actually a real person making a comment that should be enough to publish the comment. They should be able to choose whether or not their full name is published or just the initials of the person commenting. We, as a society, should allow those to voice their opinion without “full and total disclosure” … just my 2 cents.