There are a variety of reasons why people SHOULD remain anonymous. Sometimes expressing profound but controversial thoughts can be dangerous. Both personally and professionally. That is simple reality.

If there are people acting foolish then they should be banned--and they currently are.

Patch should NOT submit to this way of squelching shared opinions because occasionally someone gets to read something vile.

The vast majority should not be made to suffer for your Utopian view of the world.

As the article stated, even Facebook with approximately a billion users is going this way as well. I didn't expect everyone to agree with me but to make a more inviting community it sure does improve things if you know who you are really interacting with.

Thanks for your comment, however.

"It is time we not let slide the irresponsible and in some cases slanderous ways of some people."
I think it would be libelous, slander is spoken.

I thought I.D. was a way to disenfranchise people. Elderly and handicapped people should be allowed to post on Patch.

Since Patch is a private site, it can require whatever it wants. It may end up with Rees and Keith Schmitz sitting around agreeing with each other, but that may not pay the bills. Most sites do not require a passport to post, for good reasons. There are as many good points to anonymity as there are bad.

Have no fear, (anonymous) Bren is here to moderate the site.

"I have heard some people say they use fake names for safety reasons. My response is if you do not say irresponsible things you will not need to fear from people. It is when you make threats or get people really upset that some might react with violence or the treat of violence. Treat people like you would like to be treated and that problem goes away."

I strongly disagree with you on this point Rees.

It doesn't take 'irresponsible' comments to cause someone to become upset to the point of retribution. I once made a guy upset on Patch because I commented that I am happy to get my hair cut at Great Clips.

Over the past year or two, we have seen extremely strong reactions when Walker proposed his Budget Repair Bill--death threats, assault, battery, boycotts and other such things. Not only were the politicians themselves targeted, but those who supported or opposed those politicians were often targeted as well.

There are often topics of discussion on Patch that actually could put someone in a position of fearing retribution should their identity be known. I don't see the choice to hide one's identity as being much different than the 'whistleblower' laws that protect informants from retribution from employers that they speak out against or speak critically of in the comments.

I doubt highly that Facebook will "go that way". I have no doubt they will try to go that way and will be wildly unsuccessful.

I agree that this should be a place for civil discourse...and to date the moderators have done a reasonable job of keeping it nice. (the Patch)

It is odd that many of the same people that WANT government ID's to post on- line (here or other places) state emphatically that the same ID disenfranchise the poor and minorities when it comes to voting....Can't be both... :)

In the end, there is ZERO correlation between knowing "who you are really interacting with" and civil discourse.

This conversation---case in point.

I have previously stated that many of us that use screen names do so because we don't want our businesses or companies subjected to mentalities such as the blue fisters during the recall election.

I suggest, Mr. Roberts, that you ask some of the business owners on Main St. in Union Grove how they feel about it.

I agree that the Patch does a pretty good job at regulating the commentary.

Alias Rees, I see you've taken on as your mission to clean up Patch. While that is a laudable goal, you are wasting your time. To simply dismiss an ano's decision to post ano (as inviting slander and ill will) is silly. It means you haven't thought things through. As AA says above, the threat of retribution is real. I too, know a few of the Union Grove business owners subjected to union intimidation.

"It is when you make threats or get people really upset that some might react with violence..." No Rees, sometimes folks react with violence or threats because they simply don't like what you stand for.

Perhaps you are a little too close to the trees to not see the greater forest involved here, Rees. Could it be those thugs are YOUR friends? Be a little more sympathetic towards the other guy, please!

Rees, What world do you live in? My God, why don't you just post your address and phone number and save some nutbag the trouble of looking it up. Ohhh, and I cut my own hair, would never go to Great Clips.

How do we know Rees really wrote this?

Already found his address. Didn't take that long Rees. Btw, where do you get your hair cut??? hahahahaha

Ask Heather Asiyanbi, our Patch editor, for verification if you need it. heather.asiyanbi@patch.com

Just think you are a little naive. Your probably a real nice person, but there is a lot of Kooks out there.

This is a curious subject. The Patch editors have gotten much more lax in monitoring what is being written. When I began to blog, I was required to use my real name, which I would have anyway; but, as of late they are allowing bloggers to hide behind their nom de plumes. Patch editors have allowed bigoted and racial comments to go unchallenged, whereas, not so long ago they wouldn't have been tolerated.

I don't think that we need to show identification to post on threads, but the Patch editors should do a better job of monitoring the postings.

As someone who blogs on a fairly regular basis, I understand what comes with the territory, including ad hominem attacks. For those who choose to remain in the closet as a means to say what they want without having to risk any consequences of sharing their unvarnished selves, I would rather it be this way rather than attempting to peer through a veneer of hypocrisy. It doesn't take long to figure out who is educated, who hasn't a clue, who is driven by ideology and what their psychological motivations are.

Would it matter why the other sites are requesting I.D.? It does not seem to have anything to do with screen names or anonymity to other users. Knowing why there are requirements is as important as knowing that there are requirements, or in this case that there may be requirements. The specified sites are not asking everyone for I.D., just certain people they think may be in violation of terms. I think due to age.

"It's unclear whether the uptick in secured accounts represents an active effort on Facebook's part to crack down on underage users. As a public company, Facebook has the burden of ensuring that it maintains a verifiable 13-and-up user base. Instagram, like Facebook, requires that its users are at least 13, though that hasn't stopped tweens and teens from turning to the photo-sharing property as a mostly parents-free place to connect with their middle school- and high school-aged peers."

I have used my name all along. However, it does come with risks. After I wrote an article on the recalls and the two year old mentality of the blue fisters, my mailbox was blown up. I had the lugs on one of my trucks loosened and two weeks later, the same happened to another one of my vehicles.

Although, I have also gained customers from my opinion pieces on the Patch. For those that choose to remain anonymous, I have no qualms. But there are some that post on these blogs like that WPN???? that post just to shock people and come off like a racist jerk.

I will always use my given name because that is who I am and what I choose to do. To change the policy thogh is irresponsible.

Brian Dey- You have no qualms about possibly putting your family at risk? Just curious. I had my identity stolen, two years ago. It took all of a year to straighten it out, and A LOT of money.

Real names or fake, when I turn my computer off you all go away!

I'm reminded of the ARTiculate words of the great philosopher Wolfgang:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQyUKnCf0YY

There are many strong reasons to remain anonymous. People have been fired or lost relationships due to their online activities, including blogging, publicly speaking out against their company, sharing information that should have remained private, or other reasons. Identity theft is another huge reason to stay anonymous. It would be great if we could say anything without fear of repercussions without having to hide our identity but in todays world we can't. The Liberals have made certain of that.

I never show passport to vote. Why need for facedbook?

Rees:

"I have heard some people say they use fake names for safety reasons. My response is if you do not say irresponsible things you will not need to fear from people. It is when you make threats or get people really upset that some might react with violence or the treat of violence."

I beg to differ. Simply having differing viewpoints can set some people off (i.e., read Brian Dey's comment). I don't need that type of aggravation in my life.

I'm guessing that Patch will not change per your request. Its business model requires hits to its web sites, and Patch is currently having difficulty acheiving profitability. Requiring "real names" will cause a loss of certain bloggers and thus likely hurt its bottom line.

I prefer to remain sort of anonymous on online sites like this. I say "sort of" because there are quite a few in my community who know me offline and can figure out who I am online. That's fine. The reason I don't want to have my name listed is because there are those who do go a bit crazy on people for simply expressing their opinion. I want to feel free to express my opinion without fear of someone showing up at my front door. If they're really trying to track me down, I'm sure they could, but why make it so much easier? I don't believe I have EVER called people names or used any sort of Hate Speech, but I have had very different perspectives than some others who have commented on topics. If it changes to where I have to display my full name, I will most likely refrain from stating my full opinion on issues and just stick to PC comments like "Way to go, kids!" and "Can you believe those Packers?" :)

As for FB, after a couple of years spent debating with friends on that site, I've had to "unfriend" a few people who simply were unable to debate without reverting to name calling and derogatory catch phrases. Using their full names sure didn't stop them, but at least in that environment I'm able to block them from my page and I don't comment on pages where they could be trolling.

Welcome to the internet, enjoy your stay

I was nervous about using my real name when I first starting blogging on this site because I didn't want anyone hunting me down or anything. So, far I have not had any strange phone calls at work or anything. I do try to blog only things that I am willing to allow my employer to see and read. I think individual commenters should be allowed to be anonymous if that is what he/she chooses to do.

There have been some interesting comments made so far. Thanks for your interest.

It is interesting to hear when NObama 2012 said "People have been fired or lost relationships due to their online activities, etc" He actually making my point for me. If irresponsible things weren't said they wouldn't have been fired or lost relationships.

Yes, technology has given us some options we don't have in the real world. But folks, is that the kind of world we want? To be able to say everything? To cry "fire" in a theater in cyber space and get away with it? What kind of community do you really want? Do you want to be afraid? If we have things to say, wouldn't you want a community which embraces diversity of opinion but totally protects the concept that we really do have free speech. Think about it. Do we really have free speech if we pretend we are living in the real world but knowing in your gut that it's an artificial pretend community. When you can not say what is on your mind, in a responsible way, for fear of retribution, is so sad.

I will be at the Mt. Pleasant Village Board meeting recording the meeting to upload here tonight. Come by and let us shake hands and participate in our real community in real local politics.

I use the same handle for all of my blogging. My biggest issue with the Facebook blogging plugin is that they insist on displaying my employer's name, even when I have marked that information as private. My online posts have nothing to do with my employer, and they have rules about having their name in employee online postings. When Facebook suspended the account for my handle, I quit posting on twincities.com because of the privacy issues.

Welcome to the Orwelian state .. only politically correct speech is allowed .. We want your name and address if otherwise so we can find you. Have a good day

When I first created an account, it was anonymous. Then I thought about why and chose to state my name clearly. I know my father would be disappointed, if I didn't own up to my words.

I feel that I am now more thoughtful when posting. At the very least I take my time before hitting reply, because I know that my name carries my reputation and my credibility.

I see this forum as something like a town hall, rather than a beer hall. Both are great places to hear what people really think. However, this is a public forum, rather than a private conversation. It would be nice - and a sign of respect - to know who is speaking, but I would not make names mandatory.

You're a damned fool if you use your real name on here.

I know some people have problems with aliases so bad it borders on mental retardation. To them I say, get help. I'll say what I want, and in person if I feel like it.

requiring ID of some sort to set up account from the same people that fight against having a ID to vote for an election of our president....
remember... ID's are "racist, hurt the poor, do it for the children, etc etc.."

Nobody's really anonymous. If you cause enough trouble, you'll find that out. Anonymous user names have been around since the days of BBS's and probably whatever preceded those. We should be used to them by now, I'd think.

I don't think it's necessary for every forum out there to conform to one set of rules. If you don't like anonymous users, find one of those forums out there that doesn't allow them. Then again, it's easy enough to fake an identity that would pass muster in most of them if one is so inclined...

The Federalist Papers were published with Nom de Plume 'Publius' ;written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.

The publication of political positions under pseudonyms was standard practice in that era. It avoided personalities and personal attacks upon the authors.

One had to respond to the arguments made on the printed page.

Not a bad idea...

I happened to be reading the January edition of the Smithsonian last night and was surprised to find an article that addressed this very topic. They interviewed a fellow named Jaron Lanier whom they say was instrumental in the creation of Web 2.0. This man is now warning people of the dangers of the internet and the anonymity it allows. "...he saw anonymity as a poison seed. The way it didn't hide, but, in fact, brandished the ugliness of human nature beneath the anonymous screen name masks. An enabling and foreshadowing of mob rule, not a growth of democracy, but an accretion of tribalism." Thoughts? He's worried about a future "where everybody coheres into this cruelty beam..." Because people are not giving their names, they feel they're able to join with others to do horrible things - just like mobs and crowds have in the past.

The Internet is like nothing that has ever existed before and I think it will take a long time before we really see how it will impact and change the way humans work and interact with each other. I don't see how rude remarks made on a blog website can upset the balance of society and cause serious harm, but I could be mistaken.

I have noticed that the most comments here come from those who are anonymous themselves. Kinda self serving, right? Also, I give way more weight and credibility to comments from Lyle Ruble, Brian Dey, Tracy Craft, Mike Knox, Bob McBride and Jay Sykes.

For me all this comes down to is trying to improve our community. Sure we all come from diverse backgrounds but we should be able to interact with each other like we would in person. I totally agree with those comments provided in the Smithsonian. Instead of becoming more together we appear to be helping ourselves to a big dose of division. We appear to be content on fostering ill will and taking the lead of main stream media and focus on what is sick in our society. Can you not see that by talking more about what is negative rather than positive that we are reaping what we sow? Case in point is all of the attention given to those who have used guns in our schools across the country. Can you not see the relationship between that 24x7 coverage and the more we see it in other schools? We simply need to focus on what is positive. Hiding behind anonymous names and spewing negatives does little for our positive sense of community.

Well said CowDung....well said. Its the content of the message and the spirit in which its delivered that should matter more so that the name attached to it. People are in control of their own comments...if they name call and bash, ignore those comments as not credible, who cares if CC#1's name was on them or Joe Smith. Retaliation is real risk and a real possibility, one risk that some of us are not willing to take.

@Rees Roberts....Brian Dey brings up a good point about opposing the oppositions' ideas and ideologies and not opposing the person. Just like with Brian, I would welcome the opportunity to sit down and break bread with him. Bob McBride has my respect because of his clarity of message, sarcasm, cynicism and wit. He also keeps people like me on task and honest. CowDung is the person I would turn to for any engineering project that I wanted to get done. Jay Sykes is a number guy and if I still needed an accountant, I would turn to him in a heartbeat. Many that I read and spar with have proven a consistency that I can trust. That said, there are others that make me very uncomfortable with their diatribe of hatred. Those occupy both sides of the political isle. To a certain extent we have the opportunity of self governance and need to consistently call out the "flamers, snipers and trolls.
When it gets to much, that's when I expect the Patch editors to step in.

Rees, I found myself equally drawn to the comments under the article you linked, as a rich dialogue about the social and economic impact of sites like Facebook emerged.

My views of the anonymous poster clearly differ slightly from yours as I myself post under a pseudonym. I've had more than one attempt to discover my identity since joining Patch, and don't believe I've written "irresponsible things." I write things that some folks find disagreeable, certainly.

What I find compelling about Patch is the very fact that no one knows who I am. All I am here, my credibility and reputation, all rely squarely upon my own capacity to present and persuade. There is challenge and satisfaction in that, I surprisingly found. I've also realized that anonymity, while protecting in one aspect, also exposes weakness in argument. I actually appreciate that someone will respond with refreshing frankness, even if I disagree or they are wrong. I have observed more than once, an individual who begins posting invective, but when challenged to prove statements, actually begins/renews the research journey. Seeing that process brings me great joy. My concern for America is that, so wrapped up in our lives and a generations-old idea of what TV thinks we are that we are missing the opportunities of what our country actually is. We're also turning a blind eye to opportunists who put profit before patriotism. We all need to pay more attention.

Less than a year ago, a local former city council member posted an opinion article on Patch. When some people disagreed with what he said, he threatened to "find out their IP addresses and have a personal talk with them". To me, that is a good argument for using handles on Patch.

It’s called freedom of speech as well as freedom of the press. Nowhere does it say you must claim your thoughts. Here’s an idea gives more weight to the claimed responses and brush off the others. Or better yet choose not to participate if you do not like the forum either way it’s an open forum and deal with it…

My name bores me. I think I will have it legally changed to Ben Dover or Al Coholic just so people will accept me on here.

Cow, I probably wouldn't want to converse with Otter or Bluto either. But would with Boon (but only because I think Katy is hot) :D

Anyway, you did a nice job of sinking his argument. Rees should judge your remarks by the content of your character, instead of the color of your name.

Post whatever you'd like under your own name. Just remember that anything posted on the internet can be retrieved FOREVER. How do you know your point of view won't change dramatically in the next 10 or 20 years and that your future self won't find what you said today completely naive or otherwise embarrassing?

Consider that current and future employers, friends and spouses will be able to read what you've written FOREVER as well (google the internet wayback machine if you'd like to see for yourself). Even worse, consider if your government takes a turn for the more tyrannical and outlaws certain forms of speech or begins to persecute certain interest groups. By that point it is far too late to take back what you've said and any criticisms made. That is why anonymity is needed now and forever and should be respected as it has been historically.

p.s. Anything you post here is traceable to an IP address and of course the email address you used to register for posting in the first place so don't think you're truly anonymous even if you use an alias. For a step in the more anonymous direction take a look at TOR.

FYI - Some well argued points from the EFF on the need for online anonymity: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/right-anonymity-matter-privacy and also a reference to International Data Privacy Day (which was January 28th - yesterday!)

From the above statements, it appears that those who prefer to use a pseudonyms, feel more empowered to speak their minds without retribution. I can appreciate that.

Have you ever caught yourself posting in a way that would embarrass you later? Perhaps condescending or overly sarcastic, if not outright rude? If so, did the pseudonym and anonymity play a roll in that?

I wear a tie to work 9 out of 10 days. Not because it is required, but out of respect for my profession and to set the tone for my professional interactions. It is a form of non-verbal communication.
Online, your moniker is your attire. From some names, one could be led to believe that the person is humorous or crude. Regardless of what we say about judging a book by its cover, appearances do matter. Some names are "business casual" others seem to be sagging pants with boxers showing.

As I see it, if you have a problem with screen names the internet may not be for you.
Years ago everyone said Mr. Webster, now it is Hershal, in between it was Dude. Here I used my full real name, if I were to do it again I would go with Dude. Otis would be cool too.

W. C. Fields’ actual name was William Claude Dukenfield. He wrote many of his movies as other people, including Charles Bogle, Mahatma Kane Jeeves, and Otis Criblecoblis.

You probably wouldn’t be interested in watching Norma Jean Baker, Archibald Leach, or Karen Johnson perform, but you might change your mind if you heard the names Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant, or Whoopi Goldberg.

Just think about all the time you all have spent on this issue. What if you had done something constructive or volunteered in our community? That would make a difference and a positive one at that.

I'm late to the party, but I strongly disagree with Rees, and others demanding the use of your "real" name, they overlook many issues. Some, like Brian Dey have addressed the obvious ... possibility of physical harm to you and those you hold dear, which I add that Rees conveniently never addressed after Brian offered personal examples. Interesting that there aren't liberal posters that can share examples of retribution by the evil right after they simply shared their opinion the way Brian has.

I believe allowing screen names invites many that would otherwise refuse to offer their opinion. While it is true that a few will be repugnant when they can hide behind a screen name, on both sides, the moderators can certainly edit that behavior.

If society were civil there wouldn't be a reason to want anonymity ... any can see that we live in a world that has just enough incivility to stifle many publicly, and that is the real shame.

True, that many that are comfortable, or find honor, in using their name and are confident ... which carries some weight ... but it hardly diminishes those unwilling to take that risk.

Their are other issues that cause some to be anonymous ... reasons that none have touched on, suffice to say that some are overlooking realities due to their ignorance, which is not their fault.

I believe the input of all can be measured regardless the name ... I think Rees is missing that possibility ... or he hopes to stifle opposition.

Assuming FB or other services started requiring users to provide copies of certain forms of ID, if those services store the copies as documentation to cover their own you-know-whats (the most likely reason for requesting the documentation in the first place), that collection will immediately become a target for identity thieves.

Wow, Rees! You must be quite pleased that you posted such a hot button topic. I hope you get a per-comment or per-click spiff on this.

If anyone is still following this blog here is a link to the Smithsonian article discussed by Heather. I recommend reading it.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ideas-innovations/What-Turned-Jaron-Lanier-Against-the-Web-183832741.html

Jaron Lanier said he "saw anonymity as a poison seed. The way it didn’t hide, but, in fact, brandished the ugliness of human nature beneath the anonymous screen-name masks. An enabling and foreshadowing of mob rule, not a growth of democracy, but an accretion of tribalism."

It's that last part that I fear. Generally speaking we all agree that taking someone to a tree to lynch by hanging is grossly wrong. But in our past, that occurred by mob rule.

I did a careful dictionary lookup:

accretion: growth in size or extent.

tribalism: a strong loyalty to one's own tribe, party, or group.

party? group? Look at what we have in todays politics. Given the actions of our elected legislators as entrenched each political party has become amongst ourselves, it is no wonder people feel fear from retribution. Is that the country we want looking forward? Do we want fear as the basis to how we react? Is that the "United" States of America you want for your children? Is it? Maybe now you can see why I have created this blog. There is a real connection between how we talk amongst ourselves and what actions we ultimately could take part in. If we continue down the current path of fear, the real possibility of lynch mob mentality could come back. We would only then be a step away from seeing it for real. That would certainly be something to fear. I, for one, believe we are all better than that.

In most blog posts, it seems obvious to me which posters are using anonymity to post as "trolls", just to stir the pot and contribute nothing, vs. those using handles to post intelligent substance. I just disregard the troll posts.

Some blogs have "twit filters", used by each reader to filter out those posters who they feel never post anything useful.

Mine is not an alias, it is an acronym. No one is anonymous on the internet. So who cares what name you go by. I could make up any name and use it here. If The Patch doesn't know who you really are then they better get rid of themselves. Facebook knows who you are and will willingly provide that information to law enforcement, other government agencies and anyone else they want to so they can make money off of you.