Tired of Being Forced to Register or Sign-in to FB/other to Post Comments

This is just bothering me more and more. I see a mainstream news event that I would like to comment on and it requires registration in order to do this. Or, it requires connection to Facebook or e-mail to post the comment. I fully understand the need to register on forum-based sites(such as this one) but simple comments to news stories on major sites such as NYT or Washingon Post should not require this.

Frankly, it scares me. I think it's too much personal information that they wish to add. I think it's invasive and destroys the free communication that makes the internet an awesome place. I don't want every comment I make show up on my Facebook. I don't want every site to know my e-mail information or more.

On top of it, I think this is a crafty under-handed way for sites to eliminate unpopular comments knowing that folks will not post alternative options if they cannot remain anonymous.

I've considered making a pseudonym'd Facebook in order to deal with this, but am wary of doing that as well. Any suggestions?

Do you folks agree that this is getting out of hand and is unnecessary?

Originally posted by gottaknow
This is just bothering me more and more. I see a mainstream news event that I would like to comment on and it requires registration in order to do this. Or, it requires connection to Facebook or e-mail to post the comment. I fully understand the need to register on forum-based sites(such as this one) but simple comments to news stories on major sites such as NYT or Washingon Post should not require this.

Frankly, it scares me. I think it's too much personal information that they wish to add. I think it's invasive and destroys the free communication that makes the internet an awesome place. I don't want every comment I make show up on my Facebook. I don't want every site to know my e-mail information or more.

On top of it, I think this is a crafty under-handed way for sites to eliminate unpopular comments knowing that folks will not post alternative options if they cannot remain anonymous.

I've considered making a pseudonym'd Facebook in order to deal with this, but am wary of doing that as well. Any suggestions?

Do you folks agree that this is getting out of hand and is unnecessary?

I understand where you are coming from and fully agree..........its getting ridiculous!!

I had a bloody gut-full of FB and closed down my account shortly after joining ATS but I was not a big user of it anyway.
For me, any opinion worth its weight can be found here. Any rant I need to vent, I do here. The MSM can go and jamb it - especially those particular sites who want your personal details to simply log-in.
ATS, imo, is the exception to this rule - I've been lurking here for years so I know what to expect and I am happy with the calibre of members here.

reply to post by gottaknow


I personally don't see the harm in it. For all the hyperbole and rhetoric floating around... the worst case scenario in having a very generic and non-personalized Facebook page is that you'll get data mined. And that's happening every single time you click a link or type in a URL anyway. Even if you're on top of your game and have every blocker known to man... you're still three steps behind and being mined.

It's funny really... as a culture we've developed this on line paranoia about identity theft... but we don't think twice about handing or debit cards to a clerk, waitress, or swiping them, ourselves, in literally any necessary swipe pad. Reality is actually dangerous compared to most of our on line habits these days.

So get a Facebook page, leave it as generic as possible ( so that you can't fall into any traps, such as losing a job because the pic of you, on vacation, having a beer "clashes" with "company image desires" or something like that ) and then use it. The worst thing that will happen is that some generic information about you will end up for sale to corporations. I mean it's not like they aren't getting most of that info already, through other data mining tools..

My .02 cents.

~Heff

On most of the important stories here there isn't even a comment section. Then the same paper will do a story about racism or somthing then it's open season for comments.

The next big social network will be anonymous.

NFL.com recently started this. It's annoying.

It is used as a system to control what the readers perceive as a “unbiased public opinion” on the article.

The place you will see it most often “used to effect” is in gun control, anti nuke, and environmental related articles.

They use the google or FB ID to guarantee that it is, or is not the same person that posted last time.

Some sites say they have open comments. But when you try to comment, you find out they are pre screened before they even show up. They don’t say it in the comments section that all the comments are pre screened, so people that are just reading the comments get the impression that that is unbiased opinion on the article.

With FB or google id then they sometimes allow your comment to be viewed before it’s screened. But if it is against their viewpoint, then it will be quickly deleted or never aired in the first place. People that post comments that support the article will have their comments prescreened the first time, then succeeding comments will be auto posted after the screener knows that person agrees with them.

Standard fair is…. If you post information that shows the article to be false, then your post will never be displayed. If it is displayed, then it will be quickly removed. In ether case, you will be permanently banned. There will be no indication left on the site that anyone had posted a comment in the first place.

Other devious things I have seen… On sites with open comments. People that post something agreeing with the article will have their comments displayed within minutes. People that post something disagreeing with the article will have their post delayed for days, if not a week or more before it finally clears the screener. The reason they do that is most of the traffic for an article (and it’s effect on people) passes within a few days of it’s publishing. If they hold the contrary comments up for a week then 99% of the people seeing the article will see the public agreeing with them. And it allows them to say with a straight face that all comments that are not derogatory, or threatening are published………. eventually.

Other sites will give the original poster the idea the comment is publicly viewable. But in reality it is not untill it's screened. They keep track of which computer posted it. That computer is served a page that has his comment in the comments section with no indication that it is awaiting screening, but the rest of the viewers see nothing until the comment is approved. If it supports, then it will be approved in hours, if it doesn’t’ support, then it will never see another computer’s screen. I have found that out by checking on an article at another place to see what other people have said about my comment. I never found the comment in question. But when I went back home, the comment was still in the comments section. Double checked and finally figured out what was going on.

The reason sites do stuff like that is the simple fact that most people have a follow the herd mentality. They tend to shift their opinion to what they “perceive” the majority of the rest of the population thinks. They don’t want to think of themselves as a person that is going against the grain.

So sites use selective editing of comments to try and foment public opinion. The comments section is used as an opinion influencing tool as the article it’s self.

It also supports the self delusion that what the supporters are participating in is an open forum. People that support it have their comments posted promptly, if not instantly. All the commenters wonder why anyone could disagree with them because clearly they are the majority on this nice open public forum. The people that know the truth are the ones that disagree that never are allowed to experess their opinion. But those people are “lost causes” as for as that site is concerned anyways. And the vast majority of people. The ones that don’t comment will think they see that the majority of people agree with the article , so it will have the effect of shifting their opinion on the subject. Because….. “I must not be understanding the subject properly, because the majority can’t be wrong ….. can they?”

The thing is… You are not being allowed to see what the majority thinks in the first place.

After a while… people will answer a question with the answer they think the majority would give, even if they don’t exactly understand how that answer is correct. It’s called brainwashing.


On websites that can’t bring themselves down to that level they will just not allow comments in the first place. They know the article is against public opinion so they just remove the comments section entirely for that article. The ones that they know the public will support, is the ones they leave the comments section in place on.

It is like this story that I have just got done dealing with.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

In the story they use a lot of loaded statements. Some of the statement attracted the attention of a few forums to say the least.

How many comments do you see? …. TWO.
How many support the story?.............. TWO
Is the comments section locked? YES
How many people submitted comments before the section was locked? I will just say that there was a LOT MORE than that.
How many of those comments were disagreeing with things in the story? 99%

They hand picked two supportive comments out of a flood of unsupportive comments. They posted those, dumped the rest, and locked the comments section.

The one that attracted the most attention was the “dirty harry style revolver” statement. I am sorry, but a snub nose 357 is not a “dirty harry style revolver”. A lot of people found that straight out insulting.