Comments on: Yes, Gawker is conflicted — but anonymity is still valuable

By: Keith Hawn

Keith Hawn — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:45:13 +0000

Links, please?

By: April

April — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:23:02 +0000

This “burner account” feature is nothing more than rolling out the red carpet for trolls. If Denton really believes that someone with legitimate information about some sort of major newsworthy event is going to use one of these burner accounts to get the info to Gawker, he’d have better luck finding a needle in a sewer.

So far in the past 24 hours, I’ve seen people use burner accounts to post images of women being slapped in the face with a penis, photos of aborted fetuses and beastiality, and misogynistic and racist memes. Not one “mole” with some breaking news.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:43:35 +0000

Thanks, Ric — appreciate the comment.

By: Ric Sansand

Ric Sansand — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:40:46 +0000

I have to laud Denton here as he seems to get it. Diversity in commenting comes from an unobtrusive system that lets you sign in with as few issues as possible. I am a frequent commenter on Gigaom for just this very reason. I use my main email and first name and its a quick 2 field process.

I am far less interested in this universal login process everyone is enamored with. If I have something controversial to say and you want some FB, Twitter, Google login with a real ID sort of online tag, I am totally disinclined to comment at all. You want truth in discussion, anonymity is often the facilitator along with simple comment process.

Keep up the good work GigaOm!

By: mark

mark — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:44:16 +0000

Kudo’s that Gawker is trying to come up with a comments section that makes money. But the comments section is “Server sucking pig” of any site, and Nick can dress it up all he wants, but that pig will not fly..
–
And honestly, breaking news and leaks on a web site? That is what we call a hotmail account…