Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
A small-time Massachusetts paper is instituting a paywall -- for commenters
This one's a bit on the hilarious side, just giving you fair warning.
If you thought Rupert Murdoch was ridiculous with his quest to erect paywalls around his online news empire, you're in for a surprise. The Sun Chronicle, a small-time newspaper in Massachusetts, is instituting a paywall this week that's even more pretentious than the likes of which we've yet seen.
They're making people pay to comment on news stories posted to their website.
Apparently the news staff had become so sick of riling commenters that it killed its comments system completely back in April. After months of mulling over his options, publisher Oreste P. D'Arconte has decided that the best way to enforce rules in comments is to rid them of anonymity. The best way to be sure that users are using their real names? Charge them a one-time payment of $0.99 and make them use a valid credit card, of course!
Now readers in the Attleboro, MA area will need to pay the paper to voice their opinions, and the name on their credit cards will be automatically used for their comment signatures. On top of that, their addresses will be used to state the neighborhoods in which they live, just to be sure that there's no ambiguity (oh, that Fred T. Johnson). The paper goes on to state that anybody getting a little too uppity will be permanently banned from the site.
I understand having mixed feelings for Web commenters, but really... ?
[via The Guardian]
Comments
22
Subscribe to commentsJohnny BoyJul 15th 2010 8:36AM
@Sebastian Anthony
Just read the comments on this page, and you'll see why paid commenting will work better.
Boomshadow...Mike BoomshadowJul 15th 2010 2:09PM
Ironically, I'm having a bit of difficulty posting this due to password issues.
Making people pay to comment is just a stupid idea. I can understand not paying readers/viewers/etc. for their opinions. First, opinions are plentiful enough that there is little market for paying for them; second, it would blow most budgets; third, it wouldn't likely add many readers--certainly not enough to justify the added expense.
I do realize that building a paywall in the other direction does help curb abuse, and could conceivably bring a tiny bit of extra revenue in to help defray server expenses. However, even if we weren't all broke to begin with, here are the major problems with a paywall for commenters:
1) I can set up a free blog with feeds and blanket the net with my comments for free. If I can't link back to a given article on which I am commenting, fair use (currently) allows me to use tiny snippets for context, as long as it is clear that I am not just quoting the entire article in contravention of copyright. I don't need a given comments page.
2) In general, people don't like to pay extra for anything, much less the power to comment on a newspaper web page.
3) While abolishing anonymity by requiring real names in conjunction with the paywall will limit abuse (and liability), it will also restrict discourse. Yes, when someone uses his or her real name, the commentary tends to be much more well-thought-out, and less abusive. However, people also tend to hold back to the point of self-censorship when their real name is attached to something. After all, nobody wants to pull a Kanye or a Mel Gibson or a Christian Bale or an Ernie Anastos (Google him, I dare ya, but not at work!). Sure, it's braver to attach your name to your speech, but it's not free speech then. Plus, paying for speech makes it not free in a literal sense. Don't newspapers depend on people speaking freely? Isn't it at the core of not just ethics, but the business model? I mean, libel is not free speech because it's purposely injurious, and therefore illegal, but merely potentially offensive speech is exactly what the First Amendment was set up to defend. We as Americans have and should continue to defend the right to say what we want, even if someone else doesn't like it.
4) Speaking of America, can this particular paywall accept payments from outside the U.S.? If not, it's not worth having; not only do we lose perspectives from the rest of the world--a loss of insight with which America has always struggled--but we lose the perspectives of Americans abroad, particularly those of our troops. Every effort should be made not to lose the ideas and opinions of those who actually defend our country, and who see America from outside.
5) Try this out: Walk through a mall with a microphone and a camera, stop random people, and ask them a question. As they start to answer, stop them, and say, "Wait. In order to comment on camera, you have to tell me your full name and pay me a dollar." Let's see what happens.