It is the end of an era. After much discussion and consideration, the Vanguard has decided that effective 4 pm on Thursday, December 22, 2016, we will change our comment system. We have decided to go to Facebook logins for most users (with some exceptions that I will lay out shortly).
Anonymous posting has long been a heated topic of conversation, both on the pages of the Vanguard as well as in the community. This was not a decision that was made lightly. It seems the issue has come up at least once a year for a long time.
In the last three or four months, the Vanguard editorial board has had three discussions on the comment policy. Our belief is that the perception of allowing anonymous posters and the overall belief by many that they will be attacked by anonymous posters have become a barrier to the growth of the Vanguard.
We reached out to well over 100 people who cited the allowance of anonymous posters as THE chief reason for their lack of participation in the discussions and, in some cases, they reduced readership of the Vanguard as a whole.
A recent comment on Nextdoor illustrates the dilemma: “The Davis Vanguard is the place to go for hardball politics, local real estate development or other big topics. I highly recommend it, but since people on the Vanguard are not required to use their real names, it can get a bit rough.”
My observation has always been that people can be just as nasty under their own name, but the perception of being attacked personally, without a chance to respond to someone in kind, is a deterrent to participation.
There have been several articles in the last six months, where named authors were attacked by anonymous posters to the point where they will not be participating any longer.
It has been clear to me for some time that we needed to change things. Change is scary and it can be uncertain.
Back in 2009, after a particularly tumultuous election for the Measure P – Wildhorse Ranch Project – the climate on the Vanguard was far worse. Based on that, we made some major changes. First, we required registration for people to post comments. Prior to that some people were registered, but many simply entered a name and often the same person would post under many different names in the same thread.
By requiring registration, we saw a brief drop off in comments, but they quickly rebounded.
At that time as well, we added Don Shor as a volunteer but full-time moderator. That dramatically improved the tone on the Vanguard, but it has not solved the problems.
We now have 5 to 10 times more readers than we did back in 2009, and the Vanguard is much more prominent than it was back then.
There are concerns that Facebook registrations will kill the comment section and thus readership. Some have cited the Enterprise change to Facebook registration as that which wiped out much of their discussion.
However, I believe this is a change we must do, even if it decreases readership in the short term.
We are not completely eliminating all anonymous posters – as I will explain in a moment.
On Thursday at 4 pm, everyone will need to log on through a Facebook account. This is an effort to ensure that people register under their real and, while there are workarounds for their doing so through a Facebook account, it will be fairly transparent.
However, there are people who have a legitimate reason to remain anonymous – their business may be threatened, they may need to act as a whistleblower, etc.
We have a system to allow them to remain anonymous. They will have to petition the Vanguard. They will have to provide the following in writing: (1) Their name, (2) a valid email address, (3) a valid phone number and (4) the reason why need to remain anonymous.
It is our intent that this will be a small number of people only. We will keep confidential their identity and information, but that information will be known to the Vanguard.
Anonymous posters will be moderated much more stringently than people posting through their Facebook profile and we will have very strict rules about multi-registration (although, despite views to the contrary, the number of multi-registrations with the Vanguard are fairly limited).
All petitions should be submitted to: info@davisvanguard.org and they will be reviewed and processed expeditiously.
Anyone requiring technical assistance for setting up a Facebook Account or logging into the new system can do so by contacting me at the same address.
It is our hope that this will improve the user experience and, from my conversations in the community, this is a change that will be embraced by many who are not participating now.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I applaud the Vanguard for this change except for the Facebook log in requirement. I would much prefer to continue as I have, using my name and existing Vanguard registration and not have the discussion here tied to my Facebook account.
Fortunately FB allows false name registrations to accommodate the trans community. You can register a new FB profile under “Paulina”.
Paul
I agree with Paul . It should be an option Twitter should be an option as well
Paulina is a great avatar name.
If I understand the process correctly, the tie to a FB account is one-way, in that the Vanguard would be using FB’s servers to authenticate the login. FB would have the ability — though likely not the interest — to access what you post on the Vanguard (all of which is public anyway) because it would be aware of your Vanguard account. I don’t *think* FB would have access to your Vanguard profile data, but I’m a little hazy on that matter. The Vanguard wouldn’t gain access to your FB account, nor would any of its readers. The Vanguard would simply be subcontracting authentication to FB, in effect saying to FB “This user says he owns an account on FB under this name, is that true?”
If I’m mistaken, I hope someone will correct what I’ve presented.
That is correct
While I am sure there are aspects of this that are not perfect, I am also sure this is a positive step in the right direction of the Vanguard, and practically speaking about as good as can be done at this time.
I think this is wise and applaud the editorial board for making this decision – Davis is still a small community and we have to live together, disagreements and all. Anyone can get wound up and cause a disagreement to devolve into personal attacks – it’s harder to do when your name is out there. It is also more likely that one will walk back bad comments such comments when one’s name is out there.
As we saw in recent comments on the Enterprise, FB commenters can register false accounts and act as trolls, too. I, too, would like to use my Vanguard registration to continue posting in my name. In a small city like Davis, is there some better way we can verify identity of commenters?
With hopes for greater civility in the New Year.
JAB
We could do it – I hadn’t thought of it. But you could apply to continue to use your current log in and post under your own name as well.
This is a capitalist move wrapped in a “moral” argument. I support the former and reject the latter.
I think it comes with some risk though. If the readership has increased, then it is very likely that it has done so because of the possible entertainment value some reader find in the spirited commentary that will likely disappear to be replaced by more typical Davis group think.
In fact, I do hear from quite a few people that tell me they like to read the commentary because it is a good fight.
But I also get that there are people out there that don’t like to fight, or that get too agitated with direct challenges to their strongly-held beliefs.
You can see how this Facebook connection works going to the Huffington Post… where the majority of the posters are vitriolic lefties.
Only time will tell if this is the right move.
You may believe this or not, Frankly, that while I have been a staunch opponent of anonymity on the VG since 2007, I have actually changed by mind somewhat since the T*** election. It is precisely because of particularly vitriolic and scary rhetoric by gloating T*** supporters, that I began to reconsider that posting on the VG anonymously might be of value to the community. When such deep hostility to liberal thought and institutions is bottled up, it might explode physically as it did at T*** rallies and yes, even in St. Louis, MO. On the other hand, words do matter. Words can sometimes paint us into a corner and prevent open minded objectivity or allowing for being wrong or worse, from seeing a solution. So, I’m okay with an end to anonymity, but along with it comes a responsibility to speak up regardless of where one sits on the ideological scale. Don’t quit on us, Frankly, et. al.
Some of us truly can’t, if we put our full name “out there”… not without serious ramifications… just not worth it.
Don’t think there is a local equivalent of “snopes”… good luck, all… best wishes for the coming year…
Yes to the criticism of using FacePlant for log-ins. If the whole point is to verify a person’s actual identity, any number of criteria should work especially for those of us who have long labored under our actual names.
One question that I would appreciate hearing a detailed answer to regarding anonymity: Does a person who is granted anonymous posting enjoy that status for certain topics or is it to be granted globally? For example, I totally agree with anonymity for a city employee who is posting about city policy. But why should that same individual enjoy anonymity for posting about an article on a social issue like race or maybe the old “Volleyball-Gate” issue? If it is case-by-case I’m fine with it, but all of us can make a case for total anonymity if we are individually fearful enough of our fellow citizens.
As I mentioned above, I think people currently posting under their own names can continue under the old log in system.
In terms of anonymity, I think in general we are going to allow one log in. Hadn’t given your point that much thought however.
Could those of us change to our real names and avoid FB?
Yes – just emailed and I can set it up
It is my opinion that anonymity should only be granted on an individual post basis with justification provided by the poster to the Vanguard in each instance.
Clarification… is your thought as each “individual post”… every instance where an anonomous someone posts? That is what you appear to say.
Concept is OK. Not sure the website can handle that… we’ll have to hear from David.
What I meant to say is that each and every individual post submitted where the poster requests anonymity that poster should justify to the vanguard why that post should be anonymous. It should be stringent or it will just be more of the same.
Paul… thank you for the clarification…
My personal opinions on point-by-point anonymity are that it has two significant drawbacks.
First, it is cumbersome (“high overhead”) to implement, and will likely mean that by the time the Editorial Board gets a chance to review and act on a “pointed” request for anonymity the eventual response under the “granted” pseudonym will no longer be timely.
Second, as I personally found out when I posted under a pseudonym during the Measure I election timeframe, an individual’s posting style is often a dead giveaway. Barack Palin and Mark West very quickly discerned that John Baldry sounded distinctly like Matt Williams. That means that the shield of de jure point-by-point anonymity will de facto become no shield at all.
The second problem can be somewhat mitigated by assigning generic pseudonyms to the approved point-by-point requests . . . for example Anonymous Poster #1, Anonymous Poster #2, Anonymous Poster #3, etc.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any way around the first problem. Point-By-Point requests will be cumbersome, high maintenance, and untimely.
LOL, I never knew that one. I knew of “Practical” and possibly “Peabody” because I knew you were fond of that cartoon but John Baldry I didn’t know about.
Matt, we had our disagreements over the years but I always enjoyed conversing with you. I’m gone as of tomorrow, I’ll leave the blog to all of the liberals to come on here and agree with each other.
Matt, but tell me honestly, was I right about Peabody?
BP – I hope you don’t leave and I don’t understand the fear you have of not being anonymous. I sometimes agree with you and sometimes disagree, but honestly would like you to stay.
No, Peabody was/is someone else . . . a member of the fairer sex. I have my suspicions who she is, and am flattered that you think that she and I are one and the same. Ironically, over the course of many years you may have voted for both of us in different elections. The willingness to be public servants may be the link that caused you to believe she and I were one and the same.
Regarding the screen name Practical, that was created in July 2012 and was called what it was because it was a “practical” voice regarding water issues in a time when all kinds of shite was being thrown up against the wall. When the water issues died down, the penduluum swung from practical to the other end of the spectrum, specifically “don’t try and lay no boogie woogie on the king of rock and roll” John Baldry.” It was an inside joke … and a bad one at that.
Your sentiments about our interactions are returned in kind. With that said, don’t let your interaction let you get rusty.
Hi Matt
“will likely mean that by the time the Editorial Board gets a chance to review and act on a “pointed” request for anonymity the eventual response under the “granted” pseudonym will no longer be timely.”
This one will not apply as we have agreed that David will make the decision, not hold off for editorial board approval.
Well, I understand…
I may try for “asylum”… but the criteria only appears to exempt those in business, “whistle-blowers” (assumed to be those who are exposing corruption, injustice, but not ‘fact-checkers’)… the “etc.” clause appears to be vague/arbitrary… but, it is well within the purview of the VG… I respect that. But, am pretty sure I won’t pass the new litmus test.
It’s David’s blog and he can control as he wants to… (yes, there is an allusion to a Leslie Gore hit song)
I willingly would provide the four “id’s”… pretty sure the VG already has that.
I don’t do “facebook” (with exceptions) … am disinclined to start, except to keep up with close friends and family.
G’bye as of 4 P tomorrow, and G’day… I can already hear cheering in the background…
I have what I consider valid reasons for anonymity… y’all will just have to deal with fact-checking by others… I have at least two folk who post by their names, who might be willing to be “filters” for my fact-checking and post them under the ‘new world order’… my opinions can keep to myself… no problemo.
Best to all…
I would encourage you to apply
David wrote:
> I would encourage you to apply
I also hope that hpierce applies (and I know others that do).
P.S. to David everyone I know logs on to the Vanguard to read comments from people like me and hpierce (not Jerry and Marina who post under their own names)…
Thank you for the thought… am seeking the counsel, wisdom of others who know me, who post under their own names, to advise… best to you and yours in this season…
Got the counsel… will think it thru… we’ll see…
The “have to go thru facebook” hurdle, not sure I want to jump… am concerned about links to family and friends…
Dad ran low hurdles… track… I was X-country… effort, but less likely to get injured…
Might not be a good idea… if part of the purpose is to avoid “trolls”, some posters have already identified me as a “troll”… it would be self-defeating to give me asylum… build the damn wall…
If Hpierce gets asylum I demand it too.
Yes, BP, that is exactly why I do not currently plan to apply… the “thin, opening wedge”… the camels’s nose in the tent… etc., etc., etc.
Your response is quite childish… I want what “????” gets…. no context as to why situations may differ… I can say that until tomorrow afternoon…
I actually support the move, in theory… but am undecided how to respond…
I have my reasons too which I’ve outlined on here multiple times.
David, would you encourage me to apply too?
BP … your 11:35 post reinforces my opinion that you are being childish… you may well have reasons as valid as mine, but to link your ’cause’ to mine, is childish, at best… please grow up.
My reasons may or not be justified in the VG opinion (if I apply)… but to link your ‘outcome’ to mine? Really? “Petty” is the most charitable word I can come up with for that twisted (if any) logic.
Moderator… feel free to cleanse my comment as “off-topic”…
Are you David, the Vanguard employees and editorial staff going to now also only post under their own names and not be able to have multiple accounts?
Snotty as hell! Now I fully understand the new policy! Am further supporting it!
How’s it snotty? Just asking a question to make sure the rules are universally implemented to all.
From the article; “Anonymous posters will be moderated much more stringently than people posting through their Facebook profile and we will have very strict rules about multi-registration“
It will be difficult to have multiple log-ins under the new system
You didn’t answer the question. It might be difficult but will it be forbidden?
Hello???????
Once again David, can you answer my questions? Will all of these rules apply to you, staff and the editorial staff and will multiple accounts be banned?
Yes, as I laid it out in the article.
It’s not my Blog but I would not be trying to copy the Enterprise that is losing readers and rarely has more than three comments on an article.
P.S. I can’t wait to see the “Barack Palin” Facebook page…
LOL, I making one up right now. My pic is going to be fabulous.
Don’t forget to post photos of the kids…
LOL, I have darling Malia and Track photos going up right now.
Are you sticking around SOD or is it hasta la vista for you?
Davis is a small town and my personal views do not align with about 90% of the population. I am unable to risk hurting my business and groups that I support by giving out my name, even if it is to the editorial staff that might know me and/or do business with me.
Good luck David.
And I’m sorry about that. It was a difficult decision which is why we took months but we felt this was in the best interest of the Vanguard and the community.
Understand that… after 40 + years in this town, am thinking the degrees of separation are 2-3, at a 96% confidence level.
Hi Sam,
“Davis is a small town and my personal views do not align with about 90% of the population”
I am such an outl