Why do some people feel the need to comment using several fake names? If they truly believe in their opinion, why not comment consistently using one version of their own name—or, if anonymity is desired, their initials?
It is also interesting to note that the type of commentator who uses multiple made-up names nearly always has negative or abusive things to say or brings up unrelated topics seemingly designed to derail the discussion. Is that the purpose?
As several readers have pointed out – Observer readers are smart and can see what abusive commenters are attempting to do – so there is no need to defend against or even correct the misinformation they spew.
Below is a list of recent monikers used by just a few people, apparently in an attempt to remain hidden and yet beef up their opinion.
- J. Stalin,
- tmplnz,
- ArmyW4,
- Doesn’t surprise me,
- No Respect,
- Confucius Say,
- Screenshot,
- donottrustdaman,
- Screenshot sent to FFFF,
- wolf
- Fullerton Voter,
- Tax and Spend to the End,
- Oscar Wilder
- AnnaEMouse
While the Observer welcomes differing opinions and wants to hear from all sides of an issue, it is too bad when abusive commenters ruin the chances of civil discussion. Some websites have had to shut down their comment sections due to this kind of abuse.
How do readers feel? How should the Observer handle abusive behavior and the use of multiple fake names?
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Local News, Uncategorized
I don’t think there is a value to or need for anonymous posting or posting under fake names. We don’t live in an authoritarian state where there is value to anonymous posting. Anonymous posting is therefore usually used to abuse others while avoiding social repercussions.
As a owner / moderator you have every right to demand whatever behavior and atmosphere you want in the comment section. I prefer people to be polite and respectful to each other regardless of opinions expressed.
Thanks “John”
LOL
I use my name, not a moniker. you should only post real names. however, once you have that policy there will always be James Smith.
You have every right to simply delete it. They are obviously not contributing anything new or constructive. I envy people who have so much time on their hands.
I’m happy you finally said this. I always read and i knew is the same person just by the way they comment. And like you said its always negative
Negative…just like those pesky patriots who wrote Common Sense and the Federalist Papers or the abolitionists who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin and The Liberator. “Negative” is mainly determined by which lens you use to view the landscape. If speech were limited to positive phrases or the celebration of conformity to a view, as some may prefer, it wouldn’t really be free speech then, would it? I stand with Christopher Hitchens who said only fools take refuge in the false security of consensus.
It may not reflect well on the censor, but nobody has to come here.
I assume that negative comments are personal attacks instead of civil discussion from various perspectives presenting sound arguments. When an argument is strong it is able to change opinions and minds. When it is a personal attack it is just frustrating and hurtful.
“I assume that negative comments are personal attacks…”
And there you have it.
Saskia, any opinions contrary to yours should not be construed as a “negative opinion”. Some people are better than others to stick to facts and objectively present their contrary opinion, others are not. It’s the nature of the perspective of your articles…many of them are in a similar vein that some of us disagree with at times. Some of us are very passionate about things. I’m a moderate and like to consider both sides of an argument, but there are certain things I am passionate about and there is a tinge of anger and frustration in some of my posts, and yes, I have pointed out some glaring intentional omissions here. Some of your articles are rather single-sided and somewhat unfair to groups/people you may disagree with, leaving out critical details. When writing your articles and allowing comments, you can’t expect everybody to agree with you and post glowing compliments. For what it’s worth, the Observer holds itself out as a quasi-newspaper, but it’s opinionated news, much to my dismay (along with Fox and CNN, etc). Facts. Just the facts, written objectively, please. Not saying you have to both-sides everything, but a little more objectivity from the Observer would be a welcome development.
Must we remove all frustration and hurt from life to “feel safe”? Are feelings your primary system of weights and measures? Everything is not personal unless your mind makes it that way. Those of us with weathered skin understand this. Choice is a powerful tool. I choose not to take most things personally because most things, especially written opinions, are not personal. Now, slap me and spit in my face, that is personal.
There may be a good reason for anonymity but not for trolling and abuse. There is no free speech right to abuse. You do not have to publish either on site or in ink. That is not censorship. It’s editorial judgment.
There is no free speech right on a blog at all.
First time for everything… I agree with you.
Write opinion pieces and resulting comments are aftermath. Do better and comments would reflect that as well.
I comment under fake names, but I am never abusive and don’t troll. I have a fair amount of business with the city with a semi-recognizable name, and, yes, I’m a little fearful of someone at the city retaliating if I voice an opinion they don’t agree with. I also don’t care for people to know my political viewpoints, as things are so partisan and divisive these days.
I suspect that there is some moderation going on with the comments anyway, as some of my comments have taken a couple days to show up, which is fine. I don’t appreciate people who do troll or are nasty and I don’t mind moderation *at all* (I’ve never had one of my comments here edited or deleted, because *politeness*).
I say let people continue to post under fake names but moderate only if a comment is clearly intended to insult, especially if there isn’t a clear viewpoint set forth which is relevant to the article. Valid moderation can quickly descend the slippery slope into censorship, so a clearly written moderation policy should be instituted and made public.
Dear Staff,
Censor away if your fragility requires it. It is your publication and within your right, but it also proves the point that the Observer does not truly welcome opposition or criticism which is true in much of the biased, legacy media today. The true exercise of Free Speech isn’t for everyone — only those with a stout spine and strong constitution can bear the weight and tension. Your nemesis, “F,” does not censor and does not judge others for anonymous posts or multiple nom de plumes. You do you, but if you are focused on how many nom de plumes a person chooses to use, you are focused on the wrong thing. Sometimes, the nom de plume itself is editorial.
As Dave Chapelle said, “Man, it’s not that serious. The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the first one doesn’t work out.”
While I don’t think there’s a need for any rigid crackdown, to those who use multiple names, I’d ask they at least use the same one to identify who’s who – doesn’t need to be real necessarily, just *consistent*.
Since when is asking hard questions or confronting with the truth “abusive”? It would clarify this accusation of abuse or “trolling” if you cited an example. You [Sharon] allege abuse. Definition of allege is to accuse someone of guilt without proof.
Good point. The owners of this endeavor and their echo chamber have accused me of being a troll, for no more than pointing out flaws in their various hosannas for this or that undeserving person or idea.
Tough questions, differing opinions, and accurate information are all welcomed in a discussion. If we keep it to that – we might all learn something and come up with good solutions and better ways to run our city, state, and country.
But – the off-topic unrelated misinformation, and the abusive name-calling by some commenters always makes me wonder what the commenter’s actual purpose is in trying to derail actual discussion.
You should stop pointing fingers at people calling names because there has been many comments where you and Sasha have called people Trolls… especially if they have a different opinion or disagree with you.. and why is it ok for STAFF to write this article and not use their real name? Sounds like contradiction!!
Gee, I don’t know……
How many different people post under the secrecy of the “Observer” moniker?
Although I find most of these types of comments loathsome and moronic, I would not be in favor of a newspaper censoring them as I value the principle of freedom of speech.
I find these types of comments loathsome and moronic, but I would still protect their right to say idiotic things.
Unethical people lie when they say “politeness” and “civility” supercedes facts and opinions derived from fact. The fact is the truth reveals their flaws, deceits, and unscrupulous behavior and this shreds their credibility and sometimes their livelihood. An example of unscrupulous behavior is using nefarious connections with law enforcement to falsely accuse those of crimes who tarnish their image. Anonymity is anathema to those who fear free speech will reveal their motives. “politness” and “civility” does not promote enlightening discusssions; it is a device found in the moral relativism toolbox.
When you stop posting your opinions as news, I’ll stop posting mine as responses.
Don’t forget passing along snide comments and innuendo about people they don’t like Tony Bushala, for instance. But call Zahra a plagiarist and you’re a troll.
I just don’t get the complete audacity of “do as I say, not as I do”.
The blatant hypocrisy here would be evident to anyone who has bothered to “disagree” with this site.
I don’t label it news, because for the most part it is not.
To flat out write an article solely because you are mad and you can, is proof enough for me just exactly what author/authors had in mind.
And the nerve to credit this “article” to “staff” should be considered a “troll”.