Damn it, AJ-C. You had one job.

You may have noticed the migration of the Atlanta paper’s online Georgia coverage to a new Dawgnation site.  Today, Bill King lets out one somewhat distressing bit of news (in this solid post about “no-show” games) – distressing at least if you’re on troll patrol.

The most noticeable difference for longtime Junkyard Blawg readers, besides the new address, will be a change in the commenting, which now will be limited to those who have Facebook log-ins. If you want to have your say here, you’ll either have to join Facebook or put something in the Junkyard in-box by emailing me at junkyardblawg@gmail.com.

Crap.  One less outlet for the obnoxious.  I just hope they don’t migrate here.

35 Comments

Filed under Media Punditry/Foibles

35 responses to “Damn it, AJ-C. You had one job.

  1. Saxondawg

    I can remember the great time AJC writers had ridiculing the Internet and all those wacko bloggers. Now they’re unbranding themselves from their newspaper name and trying to pose as another fan site. You’ve got to enjoy the irony.

    Like

  2. WF dawg

    Trolls may try to migrate here, but one of the strengths of the GTP commenters is that they don’t suffer fools gladly. They may come, but I don’t think they’ll stay.

    Like

  3. Senator: If you don’t mind my hijacking here, given this new ajc policy and your fears of ajc refugees, I’m curious about your views on comment and commentor censorship. The general attitude seems to be that the host is free to eliminate certain posts and posters and of course almost every internet blog allows all comments to be made anonymously.

    My personal view is that hosts should be permitted to police guests but not their posts. In other words someone may say something so foul, one among many justifiable reasons, that they lose their privileges. However the post remains as is unless there is some other concern such as the post itself being criminal or violating someone’s privacy etc…

    Also I think that people who post should not be allowed anonymity. Real name, real photo. No address or phone number. This would allow freedom of expression but with accountability. It seems to me that the Internet would be a more useful community if it operated like the town square. You can say what you want, but we know who you are. It is a private town square so unlike a public town square, trespassing can be dealt with.

    Policing content and posters would have to be voluntary, but the issue of identity would have to be enforced by the law.

    I’ve talked with someone employed in the press who justified “comment deleted” because there are certain things that just ought not be said. Doesn’t sit well with me that they decide what I can and can’t read. On the other hand if you’re going to be a terrible person on-line, don’t hide who you are.

    Just some thoughts I’ve had. Feel free to tell me what I’m not thinking about or ignore it. I recognize I’m not entitled to any answer. Just curious about your thoughts given that you actually have to deal with this stuff.

    Like

    • Briefly, I’m a First Amendment supporter who believes people should be allowed to speak their minds.

      The line I’ve always tried to draw here is the one between speech and behavior. You should be able to express an opinion without fear of censorship (except for other commenters’ opinions, of course), but, as I like to say, free speech doesn’t give you the right to step into my house and take a crap on my new carpet without being asked to leave immediately.

      Anonymity doesn’t particularly bother me, because I think it contributes to people expressing themselves freely. Same thing with not requiring commenters to register. That, to my mind, is what makes for a good comments section.

      Like

      • BMan

        If we couldn’t post anonymously, our bosses and co-workers might see how often we’re on here during the work day.

        Like

      • Derek

        Understood and other than exposing some trolls from other fan bases I’m not sure that there is much to gain from transparency here. I’m more thinking of news and political comment sections where people say just horrific things without any accountability at all. I’d fight for the right to say those things but they should at least have the decency to stand behind their words and not rely on the fact that no one will ever know who wrote them. I see posts that would make Dylann Roof cringe. What is the value of allowing what is essentially anonymous hate speech? Employing people to police the content of posts just challenges these people to see what they have to do to get the post deleted. Just wondering whether the trade off is something that ought to be thought through. I think that over time the reasonable among us would adapt to an environment where we weren’t totally anonymous. The unreasonable would either crawl back in their caves or be exposed to the world. That’s what freedom of speech is supposed to do. In the market of ideas the popular ideas flourish and the unpopular ones marginalized. The anonymous internet world changes those dynamics and not for the better.

        Like

        • ?
          * “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.*
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
          I am not an attorney. My attorney reminds me of that on occasion. However, I do have a son in law school. I claim partial credit. 😉
          If you don’t like what gets posted here… speak up. Point it out. And carry on. There is a good bunch of GTPers here. You will get their support if your point has merit.
          Football is around the corner. And I agree with Bluto not many “corners” left to what we grew up watching.

          Like

          • Cojones

            “I may not believe in anything you say, but will defend to your death your right to say it”.

            Like

            • I agree. I’m questioning whether being able to say terrible things anonymously is a good idea. Keep in mind that I’m also challenging the practice of deleting offensive posts because they are offensive. I don’t need people deciding content issues for me.

              Like

          • Whether there is or isn’t a definition is irrelevant to the point. If someone responds to a story about Dylan roof and says: no surprise here. White men are evil. They kill and rape and enslave. White people should be hunted and murdered in order that the rest of us can be safe. Dylann roof IS white America not the exception.”

            Does it do anybody any good to allow people to post such inflammatory nonsense anonymously? Now in fairness what I read is actually the inverse of such statements but in the interest of the point, I don’t see the value of providing cover to people who say hateful inflammatory things. You are free to say them but you have to be responsible for your words.

            Like

            • AthensHomerDawg

              Jeepers Derek. Sometimes engaging you is like dealing with my 14 year old nephew. Do you not get it? Or are you just that stubborn? Bluto has ruled on this. It’s his blog. But…
              Here ya go:
              Howtstartablog.com
              Now knock yourself out.

              Like

              • Get it? At what point have I complained about anything here? Are you literate? This was never abou THIS blog. It was about deleting comments, commenters, and anonymity generally.

                Like

                • AthensHomerDawg

                  Don’t get your whitey tightys all in a wad Dereck. You’re putting way too much energy into to this thing. BLuto can handle it. Now take a nap. And slow down on that coffee. Football is right around the corner.

                  Like

                  • Cojones

                    Ahhh. Passive aggressiveness to the first degree. You must have watched “The Grate Debate” last night.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • IDK Cojones. Been a busy and hot summer. I think I have too many projects going. And that is a good thing. At any rate. I always enjoy your comments. Me thinks Derek just likes to argue and hear himself pontificate. I should just let it go. 😉
                      Yet while “passive-aggressive” has become a workhorse phrase in marriage counseling and an all-purpose label for almost any difficult character, it is a controversial concept in psychiatry.

                      After some debate, the American Psychiatric Association dropped the behavior pattern from the list of personality disorders in its most recent diagnostic manual – the DSM IV – as too narrow to be a full-blown diagnosis, and not well enough supported by scientific evidence to meet increasingly rigorous standards of definition. 😉

                      Like

    • The names Bond…James Bond.

      Like

    • Dog in Fla

      “Real name, real photo.”

      Okay but only because you insist –
      Real name: Dog in Palm Beach
      Real photo: At dog and pony show

      “So then I said every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker if that were at all possible and it isn’t, and every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger. Each time I looked around, the Palace walls moved in a little tighter. My wife or whomever didn’t notice that I was hand-feeding a guest celebrity…”

      Like

  4. Bulldog Joe

    Good for the AJ-C to finally get rid of that daily embarrassment.

    The comments section was the state of Georgia’s own “PAWWWL…”.

    Like

  5. Cousin Eddie

    Someone at the ajc just spent a week at the Steve Patterson school for re-branding in the end same crap different name.

    Like

  6. Scorpio Jones, III

    What the AJC is doing is trying to improve what the folks in the social media biz call “vanity metrics” Facebook “likes” etc are the major component of this measure of worth. In this particular case, I would say that “desperation metrics” are a better description.

    Like

  7. Macallanlover

    I don’t care what they do since I don’t read there, or participate but I have seen many sites that require a Facebook log-in to participate. What is the advantage of that? I know many people who don’t use facebook, and never will because of their own beliefs. I don’t get why you would want to limit viewership (although the AJC has been doing well at running customers off for some time now.) I am assuming is some sort of control issue about the legitimacy of posters, but surely there are other options.

    Like

    • I think it’s because trolling and spam got so bad in the comment sections of both places that they thought tying a [usually] legitimate name and picture to a comment would discourage said trolling and spamming. Seems to have worked…and then some.

      Like

      • Macallanlover

        What I thought was driving it, but surely there are other/better options. Can appreciate that you have to have a way to prevent a few from acting like fools and ruining it for others.

        Like

    • Dolly Llama

      Hear, hear, Mac. I’m not getting on Facebook for any reason. It is the root of all First World problems.

      Like

  8. Espn did this so screw espn along with the AJC. Homie don’t play that Facebook.

    Like

  9. Cojones

    Sent them some cookies about a week ago. Nice to see they worked.

    Like