Anne Rice and others sign petition urging Amazon to get rid of anonymous comments

A petition asking Amazon to require users to go through identity verification in order to comment has garnered almost 3,000 signatures.

Author Anne Rice has complained about commenters on Amazon, writing that the ability of users to write anonymously on the site allows some to write 'personal insults and harassing posts.'

Should Amazon require users to identify themselves when posting comments on products?

Author Anne Rice and others have signed a petition created by a Change.org user named Todd Barselow which urges Amazon to require identity verification for commenters. The petition focuses particularly on book reviews.

“People have found ways to exploit this flaw in the system and are using it to bully, harass, and generally make life miserable for certain authors on Amazon,” Barselow wrote of the ability of users to comment anonymously. “These people are able to create multiple accounts and then use those accounts to viciously attack and go after any author or person that they feel doesn't belong on Amazon or who shouldn't have published a book, made a comment on a forum post, etc. With the current system, if one anonymous account gets deactivated because it was reported for these things, it is easy for the bully or harasser to simply create another anonymous account and continue on with their shenanigans.”

Barselow mentioned Rice by name and that he was “sure that she will support this petition” because she had experienced “vitriol and hatred” from Amazon users. 

Rice did indeed stand behind the petition, which has now reached almost 3,000 signatures.

“My experience with the gangster bullies in the Forum has been very bleak and ugly,” Rice wrote on the petition. “I post there under my own name. They blatantly violate your guidelines with personal insults and harassing posts. If you would only apply your own guidelines this would greatly help.” 

Online book reviews have certainly experienced growing pains – as reported by Monitor writer Husna Haq, authors have been caught giving their own books positive reviews online and in 2012, the New York Times wrote an article examining entrepreneur Todd Jason Rutherford, who made hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling good reviews.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.