I completely agree with the point Anti makes, some discussions would be very effectively censored for some participants without a level of anonymity.

I also agree with the point made earlier that most of us could be traced by someone determined to do so but primarily starting from the alias rather than a real name. I've little fear at this stage that a casual google search using my real name would turn up my Oever tactics they LO comments.

Some posters have left me the strong impression that they would be more than willing to use whatever tactics they could to make trouble in the real world for those who challenge their online views. While there may not be a valid legal cause for seek to involve them.
I don't want managers (or co-workers) who may hold different views on some topics to me to be able to make decisions based on a dislike of some views that I might express here but keep quite about in the workplace.

Others may have different lives and not consider that risk to be a concern.

I've seen some pretty vile comments at times from posters using real names, I'm not convinced that anonymity makes it much worse and strongly believe the benefits far outweigh the downsides.

R0bert

I'm inclined to agree with Anti and RObert. It's plain to see that most people contributing to OLO "prefer" to avail themselves of anonymity. They have the opportunity if they wish to register using their real name - most choose not to.

For the most part, this is a singular and reasonably civilised forum. I'm inclined to surmise that changing the model to such an extent would so radically alter OLO that the thriving level of participation would deteriorate.

I understand that Graham is looking ahead in terms of advertising revenue and such like - keeping OLO alive is important. However, it may be a wiser course to look solely at subscriptions while leaving the option of anonymity in place.

There seems to be a little bit of a problem with the link posted by GrahamY on Sunday 27 November 2011 at 6:22:04 AM.

The link given, https://apps.facebook.com/wpsocialreader/me/channels/15982/content/XfkNG , does not appear in the post as a clickable link, presumably because the OLO software does not recognise the secure site status denoted by the 's' appended to the 'http' as part of a valid URL. Working around this by copying the link and pasting it into the address bar in a new tab in my Mozilla Firefox browser, I get this: http://twitpic.com/7k9ds4 . It is the login page for facebook, with which I do not have an account, nor any wish to open one. Note that the address ultimately displayed in the twitpic is different to the one I copied and pasted.

It is thus impossible for me to see for myself that of which GrahamY, with seeming justification, complains. I accept that he is probably correct in claiming that the advertising model for sites like OLO may be broken. If so, I would suggest that that would be no accident.

I have not followed closely some of the goings-on around facebook with respect to exposure of users to privacy breaches arising out of some of its default settings, but I hold most jaundiced views with respect to any concern as to user privacy to which it may lay claim.

Blogging sites have enabled the circumvention of the erstwhile gatekeepers of public discussion. A perhaps unintended consequence of this enabling of viewers/readers has been the erosion of the commercial attractiveness of the MSM, be it online or off, for advertisers. Some blogging sites, perhaps particularly OLO, may be getting traction perceived as being even more threatening to those long accustomed to being the gatekeepers.

'Playing the man and not the ball' often seems to be the tactic to which such first resort when they see a competitor gaining traction.

Don't play into their hands by abandoning the pseudonymity policy of OLO.

GY has my only e mail address and my full name.
I went against union rules in naming my self while working.
Belly[Bell being my surname] is the only name used to talk to me.
It was a long time ago but my full name was put here, after a challenge, that I was gutless.
Now please know, I was both targeted, one poster claimed legal background, and recently visited.
At night, do not freely give your details.
However if GY wishes I will furnish my full details.
I haveing this understanding, I am ok to look after my self some are not, lunatics inhabit this world.
Say lets put our names in the files, keep them safe use our sign in tags.
But this will not address two problems.
I Have contributed to this forum, come to think of it GY has seen proof of who I am.
GY should get Banking in place, he did not have them last time,so we can contribute if we want to monthly.
I want to.
We must sort out fairness for those who can not.
How do we/GY handle bad behavior?
GY is a softy, he could swing the Axe daily but rarely does, he and not us must address the fools.
Those of us wanting to contribute should remember just maybe our only roll in bad behavior is to remember a basic ignore trolls
GY can we see the payment system start with those who want to help?
Say monthly, weekly is ok.

A few points to pick-up. Forrest, the reason I didn't respond is time - it's limited. We have a few authors on OLO who are anonymous for a variety of reasons. In Zi's case he works in China, and is only able to write about it pseudonymously. We have a couple of others in similar circumstances. Not something we encourage, but we allow it in certain circumstances. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

The main reason for looking at anonymous posting is not because reputation should matter to argument, but because if real people have to stand behind what they say then they may be more careful not to offend others and argue with them.

I understand the issues Antiseptic raises, and from time to time have had to erase posts which pertain to CSA or Family Court matters. If Anti's identity were to become known I'd probably have to remove a number of his as well.

Belly, the subscription system is more or less ready to roll. I just have to check it and get sign-off from the directors. Cashflow is going to be tough for the next two months, so it would be good if I could organise a Christmas present for OLO.

There's pros and cons to the question of
anonymity in cyberspace.

Anonymity serves some people well.
As one author on the
web remarked:

"The state of debate and personal
courtesy on the internet is fairly poor - at
times it's sometimes awful and this climate
puts off people with milder opinions and manners,
reinforcing bad behaviourism. Others fight fire-with-fire
again escalating poor manners. People would mostly not
behave this way if they were face-to-face with people
that they are debating or were legally identifiable."

However, I agree with Poirot, and others. - Making
people register would reduce the number of comments
significantly. There are various issues that could
not be discussed as freely as they are - for a variety
of reasons, if anonymity was not in place. Some of us
have had personal experiences in this area and therefore
prefer to maintain our anonymity.

As another author
pointed out - "Privacy is a right. You don't live in
a house with no curtains or blinds. Why should anyone
be made to do so online?"