Yes, we have a Comments Policy, which can be found here.
There are two very important parts of it, under the section “Be who you say you are”:
- When entering your comment, we ask you to provide a valid email address which belongs to you. This email address will not be published and is requested in case we need to contact you. We may send a test message to the email address given, in order to check its validity. Comments submitted without the provision of a valid email address, owned by the commenter, will not be published.
- Be consistent in the name you give when posting a comment. Using multiple names can give a false impression that several different people hold views which in fact are all coming from yourself. Comments will be moderated if they fall foul of this.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Calum Miller makes the case for a much closer relationship with the European Union
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Lib Dems miss out by 4 votes in council by-election
New lunchtime concerts for 2025
A looming trade war?
Only 3 historical inaccuracies
Nigel Jones
Ruth Clark
David Raw
Peter Davies
8 Comments
So no cheap sock puppet manipulating public perception and no automated bots or those that don’t care enough about their digital identity to reveal it. I can live with this…
I suggest a third section. Full real names only: no pseudonyms.
Andrew, there are a number of reasons why someone might want to use a pseudonym. Perhaps they have a job that is “politically restricted”. Or if they are writing about personal experiences they may prefer the privacy of a pseudonym. I don’t see any reason why someone should not use a pseudonym if they want to. The point in this article is that everyone should just use one name, whether it is their own name or a pseudonym, and that it is not acceptable for someone to use several different names to give the impression that several different people hold a particular opinion. But I can imagine that sometimes someone who usually comments under their real name might prefer to change to a pseudonym for a particular comment – perhaps if the comment reveals something very personal- and I assume that this would be acceptable so long as there is no intention to mislead
Catherine
There may well be cases where an individual is referring to personal matters so that privacy is desirable. But those could be moderated and permitted by the editors on a case by case basis.
I am not sure what you mean by “politically restricted” jobs. But if someone is in a job that as a matter of law or convention requires them not to comment either generally or on specific matters then they shouldn’t be commenting and hiding behind a pseudonym to do so just makes things worse.
I am sick and tired of abusive and insulting comments by people like “Frankie”, unable or unwilling to accept that other people are legitimately entitled to hold different views on a given matter, hiding behind a pseudonym.
Andrew Tampion 20th Jan ’20 – 10:09am………..Catherine, I am sick and tired of abusive and insulting comments by people like “Frankie”, unable or unwilling to accept that other people are legitimately entitled to hold different views on a given matter, hiding behind a pseudonym……………..
If you knew ‘Farnkie’s real name what difference would it make? Those who run LDV know his e-mail address so, if he goes OTT ( or you have genuine grounds to complain) they’ll deal with it.
I have had direct correspondence with the LDV team and, if they are content with existing rules, why aren’t you? After all, me saying I’m John Smith, make no difference to my opinions or to anyone’s response to them.
I’m fully with Andrew Tampion on this. I’m surprised we allow pseudonyms at all, and was dismayed to find that, in order to register for Conference, I was required to invent a “username.”
Disinformation is becoming an increasing feature in politics as the “fake news” industry grows. In fact is has been argued that the 2016 referendum and 2019 General Election mark the points at which lying has become acceptable in our politics. An article by John Harris in today’s Guardian (20/01/20) claims that the Trump campaign is already bombarding Facebook users and others with targeted. false information the source of which cannot be readily identified.
Unless it has been changed by marriage or deed-poll, commentators should be required to use the name on their birth certificate. We should also know how to get in touch with them in order to discuss or refute their points of view and, where appropriate, we should know who is paying them.
Liberal Democrats should lead by example in this. False information from unidentifiable sources is as great a threat to our democracy as our inadequate electoral system. . If you are not convinced read Peter Pomerantsev’s “This is not Propaganda.” (Faber and Faber 2019)
Peter Wrigley 20th Jan ’20 – 6:30pm…..
Of course, in your world, there would have been no ‘Watergate’ nor, in fact, any ‘Whistleblowers’; what policeman, soldier, care worker, nurse, doctor or civil servant would ruin their career by using ‘the name on their birth certificate’?
Still, perhaps, they shouldn’t worry; maybe the West Suffok NHS’s demands for fingerprints/handwriting samples, to identify the member of staff who alerted a bereathed family, are so the trust could give them an award for their action?
Expats:
Surely Watergate etc were and are areas for investigative journalism where the “rules” if any are somewhat different. Here we are talking about the rules which should apply to public fora of debate where contributors aim to influence public opinion. We need to know who they are, how to respond to them and, where appropriate, who is financing them