I have always been sympathetic to people who, for their own reasons, feel the need to hide their identity in a public forum like the Gossips comments. (Despite calling itself "The Friendly City," Hudson can be a pretty mean and snarky place.) Because of this, I have always allowed people to use pseudonyms for their comments. Some notable examples in the past have been "Prison Alley" and "unheimlich," commenters who made meaningful contributions to the conversation and whose comments were consistent enough for other readers to get a sense of who they were--in other words, who established what might be called a "Gossips persona." Today, "Union Jack" and "Friendly Neighborhood Immigrant" carry on that tradition.
I have always been uncomfortable, however, about publishing anonymous comments that criticize or challenge commenters who have identified themselves using their real names. Recently, with several controversial issues before us, things are getting worse. Because of what seems like a spate of new anonymous commenters and the new phenomenon of commenters changing their identity, I am requesting that new commenters, i.e., those who have not already established a "Gossips persona," use their full names--their real names, not character names like "Ron Swanson" or made-up names that when Googled yield nothing--when submitting comments. If you already have a Google profile that you don't want to change (or don't know how to change), sign your comment with your full name. If you are reluctant to sign your comment and reveal your identity publicly, you can identify yourself to me in confidence: carole@gossipsofrivertown.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
I believe that everyone that comments should use their real names, especially "Union Jack" and "Friendly Neighborhood Immigrant", and other established people who are serial commenters. We aren't being thrown in jail yet for speaking out.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a reasonable new policy. While I wish everyone, including Gossips old-timers, were using their real names, at least folks like Union Jack use their identity consistently and don't slip into a new one when it seems convenient.
ReplyDeleteI would prefer to use my full name, even though my moniker uses as much identifying information as anyone else here who uses first names and assumes they’re known as such like Cher or Elvis, or one of the ten Peter’s.
ReplyDeleteHowever to assume that retaliation for speaking out against those in power does not happen in this insular “friendly city” …well, then I have a bridge to sell you. Just don’t expect that bridge to get a fair property tax grievance or an expedient process at the Planning Board. And maybe some bags of dog poop thrown at it ;)
CO ... I've never liked your policy of anonymity for some while others use real names ... it's never too late to create a new policy especially now! Consider ALL real names in the interest of transparency.
ReplyDeleteThanks Carole, this is a move in the right direction. But it really seems like if you're requiring accountability for some while leaving a selected few in masked anonymity, it defeats the purpose?
ReplyDeleteNick, if you really cared about anonymity and conflicts of interests, why are you not in favor of greater disclosure of conflicts of interests? Like when you opine on City Charter or City Hall issues, shouldn't you disclose that you were the former Head of the Youth Center and now grant recipient of the Spark of Hudson? Or, for example, if you live in your new house in Greenport or in other buildings you own in Hudson?
DeleteWhen I post comments on here, I sign off with my full name and address because otherwise certain people (sometimes themselves anonymous!) accuse me of being a bot or not from here.
ReplyDeleteI think that anonymity causes people to be less kind and thoughtful than they would otherwise be.
We're all neighbors. Let's be neighborly and speak to each other that way.
I think a complete policy change to always requiring names would do a lot to improve the civic discourse in Hudson.
Nathan Woodhull
29 Union St.
I agree. I'm hearing a lot of appreciation for the transparency of the other night's town hall re: charter reform. I'd like to see the same thing here.
ReplyDeleteLiz Dickey
This is a good move Carole, thank you! Anonymous psuedonyms clearly increase the lack of civility in comments. I'd urge you to implement the change across the board instead of exempting older commenters.
ReplyDelete“Yes, we’ve all suddenly become fans who have respected Gossips all along! We’re not just trying to silence that major thorn in our side. Let’s make this an equivalency to a Council public forum and pay no mind that this is a private blog that can be viewed or ignored. I’m happy to put my full name on here—and not just because my friends and employers hold the political, governmental, and financial power in this city.”
ReplyDeleteUnion Jack, I may not agree with Carol on a lot of issues but I have to respect her and acknowledge that we all turn to Gossips for daily political news at this point. Which is exactly why it's so important that the discourse be civil on the blog.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBack in 2019, James Howard Kunstler came to Hudson and gave a talk at the library. The title was "The American Small Town is Where it is At. Let's Get it Right."
ReplyDeleteI introdued myself and asked him, "What do you mean when you say 'civic design'?"
"The relationships between all the buildings," he said.
It is my feeling that we live in a deeply anti-social age, and our primary obligation is to create more opportunities for pro-social interaction.
Attaching our names to our ideas is a wonderful step in the right direction.
Thanks Carole, long overdue. Anons have had a deeply corrosive influence on the conversation here. And yes, most Anons confuse radical critique with their entirely milquetoast remarks when defending their right to a nom de plume.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletedo appreciate we can always count on you™ to confuse both the content & the form of your speech in the most whiny, narcissistic, and sophistic way possible.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWow. Sorry to be late to the anonymity discussion. As a journalist, it is a rule that you don't allow anonymity unless there's some national security issue --- or its local equivalent -- at stake. I invoke the Peter Principle for my request that Peters identify themselves. --peter meyer
ReplyDelete