The end of online comments?
December 22, 2015 6:35 PM Subscribe
Say goodbye to online comments as you know them We have finally realized that the kind of person who devotes his day to arguing with strangers anonymously on the Internet is not necessarily representative of a large swath of public opinion or necessarily good at articulating anything.
The CBC has announced it is suspending commenting on any stories relating to First Nations issues, as the outright racism they provoked was vile and uncontrollable. The Toronto Star has announced an end to all online commenting on stories (although they will accept letters sent to the editor for a special section).
... anonymity actually seems to better serve the obsessive guy who wants to derail every conversation into a series of dire warnings about Peak Oil or the coming New World Order. Or the bot telling you to click here for cheap sunglasses.
The CBC has announced it is suspending commenting on any stories relating to First Nations issues, as the outright racism they provoked was vile and uncontrollable. The Toronto Star has announced an end to all online commenting on stories (although they will accept letters sent to the editor for a special section).
... anonymity actually seems to better serve the obsessive guy who wants to derail every conversation into a series of dire warnings about Peak Oil or the coming New World Order. Or the bot telling you to click here for cheap sunglasses.
"average person posts 3 racist comments a year" factoid actualy just statistical error. average person posts 0 racist comments per year. Internets Georg, who lives in cave & posts over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted
posted by Rangi at 6:41 PM on December 22, 2015 [101 favorites]
posted by Rangi at 6:41 PM on December 22, 2015 [101 favorites]
You could fix it all for just 5$ per user.
posted by cacofonie at 6:41 PM on December 22, 2015 [130 favorites]
posted by cacofonie at 6:41 PM on December 22, 2015 [130 favorites]
Thanks, Obama.
posted by maxwelton at 6:42 PM on December 22, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by maxwelton at 6:42 PM on December 22, 2015 [12 favorites]
Internets Georg, who lives in cave & posts over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted
Actually he lives in a house. He is related to you. He is a person who is part of the community and representative of a large portion of it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:45 PM on December 22, 2015 [46 favorites]
Actually he lives in a house. He is related to you. He is a person who is part of the community and representative of a large portion of it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:45 PM on December 22, 2015 [46 favorites]
But seriously, I agree that newspapers do not need to provide a comments section themselves. If it's to be useful at all, they'd also have to pay for moderators and form some kind of community viewpoint, which is an extraneous duty on top of researching and reporting the news.
They make it easy to share articles on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, etc, which is where each person's own communities are—so MetaFilter can have one kind of conversation about a First Nations story, /r/politics and /r/firstnations can have others, and /pol/ can have a very different one. "All people who read this national newspaper" is not a good basis for a community.
posted by Rangi at 6:46 PM on December 22, 2015 [27 favorites]
They make it easy to share articles on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, etc, which is where each person's own communities are—so MetaFilter can have one kind of conversation about a First Nations story, /r/politics and /r/firstnations can have others, and /pol/ can have a very different one. "All people who read this national newspaper" is not a good basis for a community.
posted by Rangi at 6:46 PM on December 22, 2015 [27 favorites]
The great democratization of opinion has just proven beyond much doubt how ignorant and angry huge numbers of people are. That's not news, sadly.
It's also shown that if you're not interested in being drowned out and bummed out by the angry ignoramitariat, you have to pick and choose where and with whom you hang out, as in life, and if you want to run a place on the internet where people can congregate and communicate, that Job One is actively trying -- as Metafilter does, to pick the obvious example -- to welcome everyone, but be very clear about the culture you want to promote, and the level of shit you are willing to take from the shouty and the dumb.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:48 PM on December 22, 2015 [32 favorites]
It's also shown that if you're not interested in being drowned out and bummed out by the angry ignoramitariat, you have to pick and choose where and with whom you hang out, as in life, and if you want to run a place on the internet where people can congregate and communicate, that Job One is actively trying -- as Metafilter does, to pick the obvious example -- to welcome everyone, but be very clear about the culture you want to promote, and the level of shit you are willing to take from the shouty and the dumb.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:48 PM on December 22, 2015 [32 favorites]
About the only comments I read on a news site are for the football (soccer) articles on the Guardian, because there the comments of the obsessed/biased are just banter and everyone gets their comeuppance at some point.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 6:49 PM on December 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 6:49 PM on December 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
If you want comments, you need moderators. We have known this since the beginnings of Usenet. Because people, with no threat of retribution, turn into Hitler.*
* Remember, we have suspended Godwin's law due to the current emergency for your protection.
posted by eriko at 6:54 PM on December 22, 2015 [27 favorites]
* Remember, we have suspended Godwin's law due to the current emergency for your protection.
posted by eriko at 6:54 PM on December 22, 2015 [27 favorites]
Good, and good riddance.
The problem isn't, necessarily, comment sections. It's unmoderated comment sections. A place like MeFi has a solid, informed, and active team of moderators who make sure what's posted is not pure garbage. Your average newspaper site, even the big name ones, isn't going to have the money to pay someone to sit there and moderate. They can barely pay the employees they got!
It would be nice if something like Civil Comments caught on, but putting the onus to moderate, via peer-review, on the user is asking too much, too. And, lord, up- and down-voting are not a solution either---too easily gamed, for one.
I often think that human empathy can't reach internet scale. We're not wired for it.
posted by SansPoint at 6:58 PM on December 22, 2015 [9 favorites]
The problem isn't, necessarily, comment sections. It's unmoderated comment sections. A place like MeFi has a solid, informed, and active team of moderators who make sure what's posted is not pure garbage. Your average newspaper site, even the big name ones, isn't going to have the money to pay someone to sit there and moderate. They can barely pay the employees they got!
It would be nice if something like Civil Comments caught on, but putting the onus to moderate, via peer-review, on the user is asking too much, too. And, lord, up- and down-voting are not a solution either---too easily gamed, for one.
I often think that human empathy can't reach internet scale. We're not wired for it.
posted by SansPoint at 6:58 PM on December 22, 2015 [9 favorites]
I think the bigger lesson here is that dropping a comment thread underneath a news article is a shitty way to drive real engagement. For online comments to be worthwhile at all, they need to be coming out of a community that is at least in part defined by good and worthwhile discussion -- in other words, the community has to exist for commentary on a broad level outside of the context of a particular article, as opposed to being formed and re-formed with each new story and news cycle.
posted by tocts at 7:00 PM on December 22, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by tocts at 7:00 PM on December 22, 2015 [24 favorites]
Before clicking into this thread I successfully predicted the first three comments.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:00 PM on December 22, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 7:00 PM on December 22, 2015 [7 favorites]
Rangi: The problem with using Twitter is a comment section is that if you're making a comment on a news story, it's far more public than your average comment section---especially if you're @-replying the publication. It becomes an open invitation for every Twitter-using whack job with an Egg avatar and a grudge to @-reply you into oblivion. Newspaper comment sections at least often have the advantage of being self-contained.
Offloading comments to social media is an easy way to deflect the view that the publication is closing themselves to feedback, while cutting the overhead costs of having someone filter through all the garbage they receive. It's no-win.
posted by SansPoint at 7:04 PM on December 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
Offloading comments to social media is an easy way to deflect the view that the publication is closing themselves to feedback, while cutting the overhead costs of having someone filter through all the garbage they receive. It's no-win.
posted by SansPoint at 7:04 PM on December 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
What was that about cheap sunglasses?
posted by nfalkner at 7:06 PM on December 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by nfalkner at 7:06 PM on December 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
Make people write actual letters and mail them, like they used to have to. Or telegrams.
posted by gottabefunky at 7:09 PM on December 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 7:09 PM on December 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
The Koch brothers have nothing better to do.
posted by Brian B. at 7:11 PM on December 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 7:11 PM on December 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
I wish that more people who cared about trying to really increase understanding could calmly engage and somehow combat instead of just getting tired of the conflict and avoiding it. I understand the need to avoid this kind of conflict, I just believe that there's got to be a better way to handle it than just cutting off comments entirely and/or avoiding people who disagree.
I'm not telling anyone to do or not do anything here; I'm not blaming you or the CBC or saying that engaging with trolls will somehow reform them. I'm just hoping that someone, somewhere is working on a better solution.
posted by amtho at 7:12 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not telling anyone to do or not do anything here; I'm not blaming you or the CBC or saying that engaging with trolls will somehow reform them. I'm just hoping that someone, somewhere is working on a better solution.
posted by amtho at 7:12 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
the kind of person who devotes his day to arguing with strangers anonymously on the Internet is not necessarily representative of a large swath of public opinion
Or, if history is any kind of guide, they are very much representative of a large swath of public opinion.
posted by This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things at 7:14 PM on December 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
Or, if history is any kind of guide, they are very much representative of a large swath of public opinion.
posted by This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things at 7:14 PM on December 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
amtho The solution is content moderation, and policies that back it up. Even the half-assed stuff like up/down voting is offloading moderation onto the users, which is why it's often ineffectual. Ideally, it's someone who is paid to do it, as well. All the "better" solutions being bandied about are, basically, ways of doing moderation with less staff.
posted by SansPoint at 7:15 PM on December 22, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 7:15 PM on December 22, 2015 [4 favorites]
Because people, with no threat of retribution, turn into Hitler.*
I like the asterisk on Hitler. Like a little mustache.
posted by thebestusernameever at 7:16 PM on December 22, 2015 [10 favorites]
I like the asterisk on Hitler. Like a little mustache.
posted by thebestusernameever at 7:16 PM on December 22, 2015 [10 favorites]
Laziness/cheapness. Techdirt has a decent comments section (and a low opinion of those who don't.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:17 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:17 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
By the by, journalist Sarah Jeong's The Internet of Garbage is a great examination of the problems with comment sections, social media, and online harassment.
posted by SansPoint at 7:19 PM on December 22, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 7:19 PM on December 22, 2015 [9 favorites]
I like the asterisk on Hitler. Like a little mustache
I regret that I have but one asterisk for my county.
posted by eriko at 7:31 PM on December 22, 2015 [9 favorites]
Charge people a small fee to submit one comment -- say, 25-50 cents. An editor can decide which comments get posted; for the ones that don't, the fee gets refunded. If the barrier to entry for a letter to the editor is a stamp, then charge at least as much for the privilege of posting a digital version of the same.
posted by armage at 7:53 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by armage at 7:53 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
People just turned out to be so much dumber than we had hoped.
It shouldn't have been a surprise. The US Constitution, for example -- with its Electoral College; two Senators per state, no matter the size; and lifetime court appointments -- was purpose-built to check the idea that dumb, uneducated masses would ruin everything. And it didn't even work, either.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:56 PM on December 22, 2015 [14 favorites]
It shouldn't have been a surprise. The US Constitution, for example -- with its Electoral College; two Senators per state, no matter the size; and lifetime court appointments -- was purpose-built to check the idea that dumb, uneducated masses would ruin everything. And it didn't even work, either.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:56 PM on December 22, 2015 [14 favorites]
Since Trump is the comments section embodied in a single human form, doesn't his popularity prove that awful commentors are not some tiny statistically insignificant population? I have no reason to believe at this point that most commentors are trolls rather than sincere.
posted by gatorae at 8:01 PM on December 22, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by gatorae at 8:01 PM on December 22, 2015 [24 favorites]
> Before clicking into this thread I successfully predicted the first three comments.
Congratulations, you minority report hot tubbing old so and so
posted by boo_radley at 8:08 PM on December 22, 2015 [10 favorites]
Congratulations, you minority report hot tubbing old so and so
posted by boo_radley at 8:08 PM on December 22, 2015 [10 favorites]
gatorae: Since Trump is the comments section embodied in a single human form
Ok, I'm going to have to steal that for the upcoming Christmas gatherings. Thank you.
posted by traveler_ at 8:09 PM on December 22, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ok, I'm going to have to steal that for the upcoming Christmas gatherings. Thank you.
posted by traveler_ at 8:09 PM on December 22, 2015 [4 favorites]
Laziness/cheapness. Techdirt has a decent comments section (and a low opinion of those who don't.)
Techdirt received a total of 161 comments so far today across all posts. The Blue has 904 so far today across all posts. The CBC, on a story picked at random off their front page about Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau as a new fashion icon that's maybe 25 sentences long and contains virtually zero substance that you could rationally take issue with, has 654 comments. That number was 641 when I started writing that sentence. You're comparing a fistfight to a nuclear exchange. (661) Even paid moderation can only do so much, unless you're willing and able to take the Facebook approach and hire what amounts to an army of moderators applying draconian rules and working for sweatshop wages. The CBC doesn't have a market cap of ~$300b, though, so I doubt they've got the resources for that. (663)
posted by protocoach at 8:14 PM on December 22, 2015 [40 favorites]
Techdirt received a total of 161 comments so far today across all posts. The Blue has 904 so far today across all posts. The CBC, on a story picked at random off their front page about Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau as a new fashion icon that's maybe 25 sentences long and contains virtually zero substance that you could rationally take issue with, has 654 comments. That number was 641 when I started writing that sentence. You're comparing a fistfight to a nuclear exchange. (661) Even paid moderation can only do so much, unless you're willing and able to take the Facebook approach and hire what amounts to an army of moderators applying draconian rules and working for sweatshop wages. The CBC doesn't have a market cap of ~$300b, though, so I doubt they've got the resources for that. (663)
posted by protocoach at 8:14 PM on December 22, 2015 [40 favorites]
Tracking The "Trump Is A Comment Section Running for President" Joke
posted by Ian A.T. at 8:22 PM on December 22, 2015 [26 favorites]
posted by Ian A.T. at 8:22 PM on December 22, 2015 [26 favorites]
Your average newspaper site, even the big name ones, isn't going to have the money to pay someone to sit there and moderate. They can barely pay the employees they got!
How is it possible that newspapers make so little that they cannot afford to hire a handful of moderators, when Metafilter is somehow able to do this? I ask in all seriousness: I do not understand how that's possible, when combined with the $5 barrier to entry.
posted by nushustu at 8:24 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
How is it possible that newspapers make so little that they cannot afford to hire a handful of moderators, when Metafilter is somehow able to do this? I ask in all seriousness: I do not understand how that's possible, when combined with the $5 barrier to entry.
posted by nushustu at 8:24 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
Newspapers also have to observe and write the news, not just moderate it. But still, it's a failing business model, they can mostly barely afford to exist.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:34 PM on December 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:34 PM on December 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
The news is not improved or enriched through the commentary of the masses. Good riddance.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:36 PM on December 22, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:36 PM on December 22, 2015 [7 favorites]
A long long time ago, I used to consult for newspapers who were moving content online and even back then they were actively looking at the problem of comments and moderation. They wanted something usable without increasing costs-- but it doesn't seem as many have done much very innovative work around the idea.
I think they haven't seen themselves as hosting a community-- in the end they've seen themselves as content providers first and foremost. Maybe that's right, but maybe it also accidentally turned them into a commodity. Are there any primary content providers who have managed to create a community feeling among readers/commenters? xojane, maybe? (I'm serious.)
posted by frumiousb at 8:36 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think they haven't seen themselves as hosting a community-- in the end they've seen themselves as content providers first and foremost. Maybe that's right, but maybe it also accidentally turned them into a commodity. Are there any primary content providers who have managed to create a community feeling among readers/commenters? xojane, maybe? (I'm serious.)
posted by frumiousb at 8:36 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
How is it possible that newspapers make so little that they cannot afford to hire a handful of moderators, when Metafilter is somehow able to do this? I ask in all seriousness: I do not understand how that's possible, when combined with the $5 barrier to entry.
See what I just posted above regarding the scale you're actually talking about. And consider that moderating here isn't easy (based on threads I've seen about belt-tightening measures in the past), even with a community that's engaged, usually thoughtful, at least somewhat self-policing...look, moderating anything is hard. I moderated a paintball message board while I was in high school and college. I thought I did a pretty decent job, and some people agreed, and some people hated my guts. That was a community that wasn't as relatively calm as Metafilter, had much looser rules, and had a staff (around) seven times bigger than what we have here. And we mostly just about kept a lid on things, and sometimes screwed up, and that was with most of the mods in/recently out of school and with tons and tons of free time.
Suggesting that a newspaper hire a handful of moderators to clean up their comments sections is like looking at Niagara Falls and suggesting we could just block it up with some 2x4s and super glue. Read this piece about Facebook's moderators, and what that work is like. I think that human moderation is one of the few ways that comments can be anything other than a cesspool, but I also think that you have to consider what you're actually asking a business to do. Honestly, I'd be ok if newspapers said, "Hell with you, if you want a platform, build your own." I don't think there's any obligation to tie up your money and time and mental health and good name with the opinions of the gutters of the internet.
posted by protocoach at 8:36 PM on December 22, 2015 [13 favorites]
See what I just posted above regarding the scale you're actually talking about. And consider that moderating here isn't easy (based on threads I've seen about belt-tightening measures in the past), even with a community that's engaged, usually thoughtful, at least somewhat self-policing...look, moderating anything is hard. I moderated a paintball message board while I was in high school and college. I thought I did a pretty decent job, and some people agreed, and some people hated my guts. That was a community that wasn't as relatively calm as Metafilter, had much looser rules, and had a staff (around) seven times bigger than what we have here. And we mostly just about kept a lid on things, and sometimes screwed up, and that was with most of the mods in/recently out of school and with tons and tons of free time.
Suggesting that a newspaper hire a handful of moderators to clean up their comments sections is like looking at Niagara Falls and suggesting we could just block it up with some 2x4s and super glue. Read this piece about Facebook's moderators, and what that work is like. I think that human moderation is one of the few ways that comments can be anything other than a cesspool, but I also think that you have to consider what you're actually asking a business to do. Honestly, I'd be ok if newspapers said, "Hell with you, if you want a platform, build your own." I don't think there's any obligation to tie up your money and time and mental health and good name with the opinions of the gutters of the internet.
posted by protocoach at 8:36 PM on December 22, 2015 [13 favorites]
(I used to really like reading the comments, back when there was a good chance they might contain knowledgeable alternative viewpoints relating to the article in question-- or might explain otherwise obscure background material.)
posted by frumiousb at 8:37 PM on December 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by frumiousb at 8:37 PM on December 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
I used to really like reading the comments, back when there was a good chance they might contain knowledgeable alternative viewpoints relating to the article in question-- or might explain otherwise obscure background material.
I mean...I started spending real time on the web in '99, and I wasn't around much for stuff before that, but I can't remember a time when most comments sections were safe to read. There have always been specific comment sections that were reasonable-to-good - the early-ish days of the Golden Horde on Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog remain the high-water mark for comments in my personal experience - but most places that I can remember were pretty bad.
posted by protocoach at 8:43 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
I mean...I started spending real time on the web in '99, and I wasn't around much for stuff before that, but I can't remember a time when most comments sections were safe to read. There have always been specific comment sections that were reasonable-to-good - the early-ish days of the Golden Horde on Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog remain the high-water mark for comments in my personal experience - but most places that I can remember were pretty bad.
posted by protocoach at 8:43 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's not so much that the bulk of people out there are ignorant assholes, but the ignorant assholes that are out there have a lot of time on their hands.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:49 PM on December 22, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:49 PM on December 22, 2015 [18 favorites]
>The great democratization of opinion has just proven beyond much doubt how ignorant and angry huge numbers of people are.
You know I used to think that way as well - and it is very demoralizing - until I realized, after extensive participation in the last years of Usenet (not my fault) that is is indeed just a very small percentage of people, perhaps five percent , maybe ten, who devote all their time to ruining communities (intentionally or otherwise) because they literally have nothing else to do all day. One somewhat deranged person can suckpuppet a dozen accounts a day and make literally hundreds of daily posts (I have seen this happen) whereas the rest of us have things like jobs and family (and sanity) which preclude us from doing that.
I do agree that comments sections are generally useless (present company excepted) and unless some way is devised to weed out that crazy five or so percent then we would all be better off without them.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 9:11 PM on December 22, 2015 [7 favorites]
You know I used to think that way as well - and it is very demoralizing - until I realized, after extensive participation in the last years of Usenet (not my fault) that is is indeed just a very small percentage of people, perhaps five percent , maybe ten, who devote all their time to ruining communities (intentionally or otherwise) because they literally have nothing else to do all day. One somewhat deranged person can suckpuppet a dozen accounts a day and make literally hundreds of daily posts (I have seen this happen) whereas the rest of us have things like jobs and family (and sanity) which preclude us from doing that.
I do agree that comments sections are generally useless (present company excepted) and unless some way is devised to weed out that crazy five or so percent then we would all be better off without them.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 9:11 PM on December 22, 2015 [7 favorites]
Newspapers can't even afford to have reporters or editors or anyone actually working for them any more, really. Hiring moderators? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH NEVER EVER.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:32 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:32 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
Isn't this kind of just a broader op-ed about the same deal being discussed in this still-open post from 2 weeks ago about the CBC announcement?
posted by chococat at 9:37 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by chococat at 9:37 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
Facebook in my experience is proof that 'real names' don't keep people from trolling or being jerks.
I almost don't blame CBC. It is miserable to read comments on some stories. Being willing to pay has kept MeFi both anonymous for those who wish for that, and kept the general tone a bit better.
Perhaps requiring a small payment and a little vetting is the only way to allow comments and not have it turn into a Slough of Trollnation.
The BBC's 'Have Your Say' actually rewards good comments by allowing people who agree to it to be on air. Being on the BBC was on my bucket list, and I got there by a comment I made about Milošević shortly after he died.
Rude, inarticulate and bigoted people don't get called. :). It's a huge incentive toward acting like a grown-up.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 9:54 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
I almost don't blame CBC. It is miserable to read comments on some stories. Being willing to pay has kept MeFi both anonymous for those who wish for that, and kept the general tone a bit better.
Perhaps requiring a small payment and a little vetting is the only way to allow comments and not have it turn into a Slough of Trollnation.
The BBC's 'Have Your Say' actually rewards good comments by allowing people who agree to it to be on air. Being on the BBC was on my bucket list, and I got there by a comment I made about Milošević shortly after he died.
Rude, inarticulate and bigoted people don't get called. :). It's a huge incentive toward acting like a grown-up.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 9:54 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
There's a Mitchell and Webb sketch that includes a phrase along the lines of, "You must reckon something! Let the world appreciate the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon!"
A-ha, found it. Are you affected by this issue?
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:04 PM on December 22, 2015 [9 favorites]
A-ha, found it. Are you affected by this issue?
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:04 PM on December 22, 2015 [9 favorites]
Listen, f*** you, you f***. I don't want to deal with your shit right now.
I don't want to have a conversation with you, even your closest friends don't want to have a conversation with you, maybe it would be for the best if you went away and never came back.
Nobody gives one single f*** about your pathetic life, in fact I believe it would be the best for everyone if you took a vow of silence.
Brought to you by the Insult Generator. With the Insult Generator you don't have to think about vitriol! The Insult Generator - perfect for all of your commenting needs!
posted by ashbury at 10:10 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't want to have a conversation with you, even your closest friends don't want to have a conversation with you, maybe it would be for the best if you went away and never came back.
Nobody gives one single f*** about your pathetic life, in fact I believe it would be the best for everyone if you took a vow of silence.
Brought to you by the Insult Generator. With the Insult Generator you don't have to think about vitriol! The Insult Generator - perfect for all of your commenting needs!
posted by ashbury at 10:10 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
I still want every website to have the sort of comments you regularly get at Crooked Timber, but I realize that's probably aiming a little higher than most will manage. Nevertheless, their comments policy (helpfully labeled "Notes for trolls, sockpuppets, and other pests") and moderation work pretty well to keep the comments worth reading, and that's not something you can say about many places.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 10:11 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 10:11 PM on December 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
You know I used to think that way as well - and it is very demoralizing - until I realized, after extensive participation in the last years of Usenet (not my fault) that is is indeed just a very small percentage of people, perhaps five percent , maybe ten, who devote all their time to ruining communities (intentionally or otherwise) because they literally have nothing else to do all day.
That's quite probably true. It doesn't, however, impact much on my dire intimations about the intelligence and informedness of The Great Majority.
It's funny, I guess, because I used to think that way when I was an arrogant young fucker, and then I spent a couple of decades thinking 'hey, maybe people aren't so dumb after all', but at this point, I'm right back where I started, pretty much.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:12 PM on December 22, 2015 [9 favorites]
That's quite probably true. It doesn't, however, impact much on my dire intimations about the intelligence and informedness of The Great Majority.
It's funny, I guess, because I used to think that way when I was an arrogant young fucker, and then I spent a couple of decades thinking 'hey, maybe people aren't so dumb after all', but at this point, I'm right back where I started, pretty much.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:12 PM on December 22, 2015 [9 favorites]
Why then are newspaper comments sections in particular so likely to be idiotic? And would a formal “letters to the editor” page be any different? We know, actually, that it would be different: There is more effort required in composing a letter and going to a different page to submit it – a page where you will be asked to confirm your real identity and leave a contact address – than there is in firing off a rant at the bottom of an article. That slight amount of effort will likely dissuade the vast bulk of commenters, leaving the ones who are truly passionate or invested.
Yeah, I can see this ensuring that there's less low-investment idiocy overall, and that the remaining idiocy comes from the heart.
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:42 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I can see this ensuring that there's less low-investment idiocy overall, and that the remaining idiocy comes from the heart.
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:42 PM on December 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Comments section are sort of an artifact of the 2005-2008 era where user-generated content was seen as this totally new idea that was gonna change everything -- a viewpoint that now looks hilariously quaint. Ten years from now, comments sections will be a rarity. I'm surprised they've hung on this long.
I can really only think of two places -- Metafilter and Stack Overflow -- where the comments sections are worth anything, and that's because the comments section is the entire point of those sites.
Looking back, it's hard to believe people thought you could take a random website, slap a comments section on it, and expect good things. Really, I don't think anybody put that much thought into it. A comments section was just something you slapped onto the bottom of your pages along with the "post to facebook" and "tweet this" icons. Marketing/bizdev people assured us it would "drive engagement", and then it just became de rigueur.
posted by panama joe at 11:34 PM on December 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
I can really only think of two places -- Metafilter and Stack Overflow -- where the comments sections are worth anything, and that's because the comments section is the entire point of those sites.
Looking back, it's hard to believe people thought you could take a random website, slap a comments section on it, and expect good things. Really, I don't think anybody put that much thought into it. A comments section was just something you slapped onto the bottom of your pages along with the "post to facebook" and "tweet this" icons. Marketing/bizdev people assured us it would "drive engagement", and then it just became de rigueur.
posted by panama joe at 11:34 PM on December 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
Comments section are sort of an artifact of the 2005-2008 era where user-generated content was seen as this totally new idea that was gonna change everything -- a viewpoint that now looks hilariously quaint.
Well, kind of. But the biggest websites in the world -- Facebook and Twitter, for example -- are 100% user-generated content today.
I think maybe what looks hilariously quaint, sadly, is the idea (that I was deeply invested in, in those early days) of spontaneous (and nontoxic) user-generated community. It just doesn't happen without a lot of hard, mostly invisible work to make it so, work that can't really be done with algorithms and like buttons.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:42 AM on December 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
Well, kind of. But the biggest websites in the world -- Facebook and Twitter, for example -- are 100% user-generated content today.
I think maybe what looks hilariously quaint, sadly, is the idea (that I was deeply invested in, in those early days) of spontaneous (and nontoxic) user-generated community. It just doesn't happen without a lot of hard, mostly invisible work to make it so, work that can't really be done with algorithms and like buttons.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:42 AM on December 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
What was that about cheap sunglasses?
Are you interested in cheap sunglasses? Click here to find out more!
posted by Meatbomb at 1:03 AM on December 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Are you interested in cheap sunglasses? Click here to find out more!
posted by Meatbomb at 1:03 AM on December 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Crooked Timber is good. And Yglesias' old comment section--which taught me a ton about politics--largely has moved to LGM. Only CT has a comment section I would call civil, though.
And as stated above, TNC had a great comment section.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:05 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
And as stated above, TNC had a great comment section.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:05 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Overall it's a step backwards to end comments altogether for newspapers. The Guardian is completely infested with racists and denialists, but on the other hand the same paper was recently shamed into moderating its smearing of Jeremy Corbyn by outraged average readers in the comments.
There is money in all of this, but it's being paid to posters by the 'security services' and related propaganda forces working for elites.
posted by colie at 2:08 AM on December 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
There is money in all of this, but it's being paid to posters by the 'security services' and related propaganda forces working for elites.
posted by colie at 2:08 AM on December 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's funny, I guess, because I used to think that way when I was an arrogant young fucker, and then I spent a couple of decades thinking 'hey, maybe people aren't so dumb after all', but at this point, I'm right back where I started, pretty much.
It's like Mark Twain famously said:
"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years. When I turned 28, he friended me on Facebook, and I realized the only things he'd ever learned were false birther statistics and misquotes of Thomas Jefferson. Now I'm 35, and my children will never leaen my Twitter handle, just in case."
posted by rorgy at 2:32 AM on December 23, 2015 [35 favorites]
It's like Mark Twain famously said:
"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years. When I turned 28, he friended me on Facebook, and I realized the only things he'd ever learned were false birther statistics and misquotes of Thomas Jefferson. Now I'm 35, and my children will never leaen my Twitter handle, just in case."
posted by rorgy at 2:32 AM on December 23, 2015 [35 favorites]
for me at least, the comments section opened my eyes to how much hate there is in the world (or at least among the people who read the same Websites as me). i tend to be naive and have this belief that people think the way that I do. in many cases, the Comments sections wake me up and make me realize that we as a society have a long way to go.
posted by bitteroldman at 2:58 AM on December 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by bitteroldman at 2:58 AM on December 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Join The Conversation!"
"That sounds great, don't mind if I..."
*rounds corner, sees what's going on*
*slowly backs away, rounds corner, breaks into a sprint*
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:46 AM on December 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
"That sounds great, don't mind if I..."
*rounds corner, sees what's going on*
*slowly backs away, rounds corner, breaks into a sprint*
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:46 AM on December 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
I know what you mean, bitteroldman. I've been stunned. But I don't think comments sections of newspapers (or certain bulletin boards) are accurate reflections of who we are. People infect each other, in those cesspools.
I'm not saying noxious ideas wouldn't come to them independently or from other places, but I think seeing a) those kinds of ideas articulated and b) that others have them (if they did previously occur to them, in some form) and c) that these ideas are considered acceptable enough to have a home anywhere legitimate must be some part of it. I think getting rid of c) might be a little step in a positive direction.
posted by cotton dress sock at 4:05 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not saying noxious ideas wouldn't come to them independently or from other places, but I think seeing a) those kinds of ideas articulated and b) that others have them (if they did previously occur to them, in some form) and c) that these ideas are considered acceptable enough to have a home anywhere legitimate must be some part of it. I think getting rid of c) might be a little step in a positive direction.
posted by cotton dress sock at 4:05 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've recently discovered that the Daily Mail's site has started moderating comments under some articles. They did a story about an acquaintance of mine, a trans woman who used her prom as a coming-out party, and I'm glad to know that there won't be hideous comments underneath the photos of her special day.
posted by LindsayIrene at 4:32 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LindsayIrene at 4:32 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
My uneducated guess is newspapers consider their mostly unmoderated online comments sections a feature, rather than a bug.
We’ve seen sites shut their comment sections down, then open them back up again. Isn’t it possible it’s all about eyeballs for the online ad revenue? In other words, there are fewer visits to web pages (and ads) when comments aren’t present. There was a point in time that I thought the easy solution would be to only allow subscribers to comment, though that would result in fewer clicks.
It’s also kind of interesting that though newspapers charge to read more than a few articles on their sites, it’s trivial to get around this restriction.
posted by SteveInMaine at 4:37 AM on December 23, 2015
We’ve seen sites shut their comment sections down, then open them back up again. Isn’t it possible it’s all about eyeballs for the online ad revenue? In other words, there are fewer visits to web pages (and ads) when comments aren’t present. There was a point in time that I thought the easy solution would be to only allow subscribers to comment, though that would result in fewer clicks.
It’s also kind of interesting that though newspapers charge to read more than a few articles on their sites, it’s trivial to get around this restriction.
posted by SteveInMaine at 4:37 AM on December 23, 2015
You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 4:44 AM on December 23, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by overeducated_alligator at 4:44 AM on December 23, 2015 [18 favorites]
I'd like to thank internet new sites with commenting for tempering my overly optimistic view of people. It has also restored my belief that there needs to much stronger civics education.
posted by srboisvert at 5:04 AM on December 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 5:04 AM on December 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's good to know that the UK and Canada have their share of racist moron lunatics.
I was afraid we had a monopoly on them here in the states.
posted by freakazoid at 5:13 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I was afraid we had a monopoly on them here in the states.
posted by freakazoid at 5:13 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
The news is not improved or enriched through the commentary of the masses. Good riddance.
The commentary of the masses is the news. Part of it, at least.
posted by BWA at 5:18 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
The commentary of the masses is the news. Part of it, at least.
posted by BWA at 5:18 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Pretty high quality commenting over at Making Light. I'm also generally impressed with the commenting on Charlie Stross' blog. Moderation is what's making the difference in each case.
posted by kaymac at 5:18 AM on December 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by kaymac at 5:18 AM on December 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've always been impressed with the quality of the (heavily moderated) comments on the New York Times. They even did a "meet some frequent commenters" piece a few weeks back.
I shudder to imagine if any other newspaper ran the same feature.
posted by R a c h e l at 5:32 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I shudder to imagine if any other newspaper ran the same feature.
posted by R a c h e l at 5:32 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
"It has also restored my belief that there needs to much stronger civics education."
ALL kinds of education. I don't think many non-Americans realize how incredibly bad the education that most Americans receive really is.
posted by jfwlucy at 5:36 AM on December 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
ALL kinds of education. I don't think many non-Americans realize how incredibly bad the education that most Americans receive really is.
posted by jfwlucy at 5:36 AM on December 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
My new internet commenting maxim for 2016: The more mic-dropping-hot, awesome and clever in the "I can't believe no one ever thought of this" way I may think my hot-off-the-keyboard analogy is, the more my analogy totally sucks and should be backspaced into the bin of forgotten bad ideas.
posted by Annika Cicada at 5:36 AM on December 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 5:36 AM on December 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
Some reactions:
On the one hand, newspapers have always inspired cranky and axe-grinding correspondence. I was a delivery boy for five years in the 1980s and the local newspaper changed their letters policy twice to deal with a flamewar between an atheist and a conservative Christian carried out with "The editor" as proxy.
On the other hand, having been an early techno-utopian I think the project of ubiquitous electronic communication has failed. Many women and minorities drop out first, any reasonable moderates not willing to refresh dozens of times a day practically drop out next, and what's left behind are the highly invested cranks (and I'll admit I've been one of them) willing to respond to anything with a "yes, but..."
And I've seen too many cultures and communities I care about devolve into fragmentary "parties" playing gotcha or worse. You could moderate, but that's a thankless and never-ending job.
Debates become polarized, and worse you have newsrooms slashed to the bone using Twitter and Facebook as news sources. "Look at this outrage!" As journalism, I rank it below the baby-bump spotters who actually have to put on pants and shoes to get their story.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:51 AM on December 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
On the one hand, newspapers have always inspired cranky and axe-grinding correspondence. I was a delivery boy for five years in the 1980s and the local newspaper changed their letters policy twice to deal with a flamewar between an atheist and a conservative Christian carried out with "The editor" as proxy.
On the other hand, having been an early techno-utopian I think the project of ubiquitous electronic communication has failed. Many women and minorities drop out first, any reasonable moderates not willing to refresh dozens of times a day practically drop out next, and what's left behind are the highly invested cranks (and I'll admit I've been one of them) willing to respond to anything with a "yes, but..."
And I've seen too many cultures and communities I care about devolve into fragmentary "parties" playing gotcha or worse. You could moderate, but that's a thankless and never-ending job.
Debates become polarized, and worse you have newsrooms slashed to the bone using Twitter and Facebook as news sources. "Look at this outrage!" As journalism, I rank it below the baby-bump spotters who actually have to put on pants and shoes to get their story.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 5:51 AM on December 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
newspapers have always inspired cranky and axe-grinding correspondence
2nding this. As a longtime journalism junkie, I quickly grew to expect the regular missives from certain a*hole characters. They usually looked like lone cranks, and you got to recognize the names, but occasionally an issue would touch a larger number of people off and the papers would publish a roundup of 15 or 20 responses, not unlike a hate-pileon today. Later, when I worked at newspapers, one of my early jobs was to verify the identity of writers of letters to the editor, which was required for publication. Usually, they were older, retired. They had the time.
Moderation would, of course, improve matters. I think newspapers have typically looked at moderation as an unrealistic cost center - how would we pay them? - rather than as a revenue center, the way MetaFilter does. However, I'm not sure the numbers would work out. There's a fee setpoint at which the maximum number of users would join. Annually, how many users would it take to fund 24/7 moderation for a year at a reasonable wage? If moderation eliminated the comments of the most virulent, membership would decline, since presumably 'making virulent comments' is one of the biggest reasons to join in the first place. As others have noted, where there is no real community, there is no incentive to join to make positive comments.
My uneducated guess is newspapers consider their mostly unmoderated online comments sections a feature, rather than a bug.
We’ve seen sites shut their comment sections down, then open them back up again. Isn’t it possible it’s all about eyeballs for the online ad revenue?
Yes, both true. Newspapers have always been ad-subsidized, but print ads were (and still are) much more valuable than online ads. As print circulation declines, online advertising makes up more and more of newspapers' revenue. The problem with that is that online ads are so very much less valuable and generate much less income per eyeball. For this reason, the present model incentivizes newspapers to try to glean as many pageviews as humanly possible. Comments are one way to keep people returning and engaged, even if it's to argue with a*holes (I just saw that the NYT gets more than 9,000 comments a day, and that's not counting the other users who up- and downvote their comments, or just read them). It's a shame, but people do flock to a trainwreck. So yes, a newspaper's entire online strategy, including comments, is about pageviews. They are desperately needed unless and until newspapers can develop viable alternative funding models that are not so dependent on the skinny stream of grubby pennies the internet provides.
posted by Miko at 6:18 AM on December 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
2nding this. As a longtime journalism junkie, I quickly grew to expect the regular missives from certain a*hole characters. They usually looked like lone cranks, and you got to recognize the names, but occasionally an issue would touch a larger number of people off and the papers would publish a roundup of 15 or 20 responses, not unlike a hate-pileon today. Later, when I worked at newspapers, one of my early jobs was to verify the identity of writers of letters to the editor, which was required for publication. Usually, they were older, retired. They had the time.
Moderation would, of course, improve matters. I think newspapers have typically looked at moderation as an unrealistic cost center - how would we pay them? - rather than as a revenue center, the way MetaFilter does. However, I'm not sure the numbers would work out. There's a fee setpoint at which the maximum number of users would join. Annually, how many users would it take to fund 24/7 moderation for a year at a reasonable wage? If moderation eliminated the comments of the most virulent, membership would decline, since presumably 'making virulent comments' is one of the biggest reasons to join in the first place. As others have noted, where there is no real community, there is no incentive to join to make positive comments.
My uneducated guess is newspapers consider their mostly unmoderated online comments sections a feature, rather than a bug.
We’ve seen sites shut their comment sections down, then open them back up again. Isn’t it possible it’s all about eyeballs for the online ad revenue?
Yes, both true. Newspapers have always been ad-subsidized, but print ads were (and still are) much more valuable than online ads. As print circulation declines, online advertising makes up more and more of newspapers' revenue. The problem with that is that online ads are so very much less valuable and generate much less income per eyeball. For this reason, the present model incentivizes newspapers to try to glean as many pageviews as humanly possible. Comments are one way to keep people returning and engaged, even if it's to argue with a*holes (I just saw that the NYT gets more than 9,000 comments a day, and that's not counting the other users who up- and downvote their comments, or just read them). It's a shame, but people do flock to a trainwreck. So yes, a newspaper's entire online strategy, including comments, is about pageviews. They are desperately needed unless and until newspapers can develop viable alternative funding models that are not so dependent on the skinny stream of grubby pennies the internet provides.
posted by Miko at 6:18 AM on December 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
There is money in all of this, but it's being paid to posters by the 'security services' and related propaganda forces working for elites.
Has this been documented to be the case outside of Russia, China and similar authoritarian states?
posted by acb at 6:25 AM on December 23, 2015
Has this been documented to be the case outside of Russia, China and similar authoritarian states?
posted by acb at 6:25 AM on December 23, 2015
acb In the US, it's largely known as Astroturfing, but it sure does happen.
posted by SansPoint at 6:30 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by SansPoint at 6:30 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
My uneducated guess is newspapers consider their mostly unmoderated online comments sections a feature, rather than a bug.
Bingo
There is a online-only "newspaper" in my state (owned by the publisher of the 3-4 leading newspapers in my state) that has turned this into a science. Nah, I'm giving them too much credit. It's just a simple formula. Short article, followed by comments which ALL wind up with college football fans insulting each other (yes, even the non-sports articles). RTR is a common sign-off. They have zero interest in cleaning up these train wrecks.
posted by randomkeystrike at 6:46 AM on December 23, 2015
Bingo
There is a online-only "newspaper" in my state (owned by the publisher of the 3-4 leading newspapers in my state) that has turned this into a science. Nah, I'm giving them too much credit. It's just a simple formula. Short article, followed by comments which ALL wind up with college football fans insulting each other (yes, even the non-sports articles). RTR is a common sign-off. They have zero interest in cleaning up these train wrecks.
posted by randomkeystrike at 6:46 AM on December 23, 2015
Collecting specific types of comments on news articles is a hobby of mine (see my profile for a link), so it is terrible for me when sites button comments. Although sometimes better for my blood pressure.
posted by agregoli at 6:57 AM on December 23, 2015
posted by agregoli at 6:57 AM on December 23, 2015
The other thing to keep in mind that online advertising is largely targeting morons as well.
posted by srboisvert at 7:02 AM on December 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 7:02 AM on December 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
srboisvert True, but what advertiser really wants their ad next to a toxic hellstew of moronic comments? It's a datapoint, but I work for a digital publisher, and when you click to read or post a comment on our sites, we have to turn off all the ads, since our advertisers don't want to be seen next to "user-generated content." (It's clinician-focused medical journalism that I work on, so this may not be an issue with general-interest content.)
posted by SansPoint at 7:24 AM on December 23, 2015
posted by SansPoint at 7:24 AM on December 23, 2015
"average person posts 3 racist comments a year" factoid actualy just statistical error. average person posts 0 racist comments per year. Internets Georg, who lives in cave & posts over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted
Actually it means that the skewness of the distribution results in an average that is not representative of the "average" and median should have been used instead. Then the result would have been 0.
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:36 AM on December 23, 2015
Actually it means that the skewness of the distribution results in an average that is not representative of the "average" and median should have been used instead. Then the result would have been 0.
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:36 AM on December 23, 2015
>>There is money in all of this, but it's being paid to posters by the 'security services' and related propaganda forces working for elites.
>Has this been documented to be the case outside of Russia, China and similar authoritarian states?
Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
US military studied how to influence Twitter users in Darpa-funded research
US Military Admits Spending Millions to Study Manipulation of Social Media
British Army To Create 1500-Strong Social Media Propaganda Force
Perhaps you should expand that list of "authoritarian states" a bit?
posted by AGameOfMoans at 7:48 AM on December 23, 2015 [9 favorites]
>Has this been documented to be the case outside of Russia, China and similar authoritarian states?
Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
US military studied how to influence Twitter users in Darpa-funded research
US Military Admits Spending Millions to Study Manipulation of Social Media
British Army To Create 1500-Strong Social Media Propaganda Force
Perhaps you should expand that list of "authoritarian states" a bit?
posted by AGameOfMoans at 7:48 AM on December 23, 2015 [9 favorites]
The thing that bothers me about comment sections, especially in newspapers, is not that they are unmoderated, it's that they are poorly moderated. It may be somewhat automated, but every commercial news source has some sort of system in place to filter out profanity, racial slurs, libel, and so on. So the comments that remain, odious though they may be, have undergone some degree of vetting by the paper hosting them. In the case of my local paper, the comments section is made up mostly of the same people posting racist, ignorant, vindictive garbage. It is bad enough that it was a factor in my decision to stop subscribing to the paper; I would not be surprised to hear that other people have done the same. In my case, the comments section pretty much mirrors the editorial page, so that was a major factor as well.
posted by TedW at 7:54 AM on December 23, 2015
posted by TedW at 7:54 AM on December 23, 2015
It's good to know that the UK and Canada have their share of racist moron lunatics.
I was afraid we had a monopoly on them here in the states.
Stupidity knows no regional bias.
posted by chainsofreedom at 7:56 AM on December 23, 2015
I was afraid we had a monopoly on them here in the states.
Stupidity knows no regional bias.
posted by chainsofreedom at 7:56 AM on December 23, 2015
I don't have any new thoughts on the actual subject right now—I've droned on in previous threads about comment moderation dilemmas plenty, probably—but I wanted to pop into say that I adore both the earnest good intent of folks correcting the implications of the "actually an outlier" comment up top and the fact that the thing people are earnestly correcting is a reference to Spiders Georg.
posted by cortex at 7:58 AM on December 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by cortex at 7:58 AM on December 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Or, if history is any kind of guide, they are very much representative of a large swath of public opinion.
posted by This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Eponyterrible. #sadtrombone
posted by fedward at 8:01 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Eponyterrible. #sadtrombone
posted by fedward at 8:01 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Charge people a small fee to submit one comment -- say, 25-50 cents. An editor can decide which comments get posted; for the ones that don't, the fee gets refunded.
I think this would be better if you refunded the money of those that DO get posted.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 8:02 AM on December 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think this would be better if you refunded the money of those that DO get posted.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 8:02 AM on December 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
I am wondering if comment sections have made things worse.
Person reads article. Article raises uncomfortable points, which do not sit well with the reader. Reader MIGHT decide to think more on the subject and perhaps change mindset as a result. But with comments, reader glances below and sees vitriol that agrees with current mindset, undermines points made in article, and reinforces current mode of thinking.
Even articles espousing the opposite viewpoint thus become echo chambers for the reader, through comments.
I applaud the removal. When readers have no stake (e.g. $5 and a community reputation to uphold) there is no point to comments, only bile.
posted by caution live frogs at 8:05 AM on December 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
Person reads article. Article raises uncomfortable points, which do not sit well with the reader. Reader MIGHT decide to think more on the subject and perhaps change mindset as a result. But with comments, reader glances below and sees vitriol that agrees with current mindset, undermines points made in article, and reinforces current mode of thinking.
Even articles espousing the opposite viewpoint thus become echo chambers for the reader, through comments.
I applaud the removal. When readers have no stake (e.g. $5 and a community reputation to uphold) there is no point to comments, only bile.
posted by caution live frogs at 8:05 AM on December 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
Comments on news sites are like letters to the editor were back when print dominated. But you had to write it on paper, put it in an envelope and use a stamp. The letters were heavily moderated; newspapers (mostly) don't publish wingnut correspondence, at in my town the real nutjobs didn't make it to print. . I'll bet they used to get plenty. It would be kind of nice to have well-moderated comments on a local newspaper site, sort of the way it would be nice to have an actual Easter bunny.
posted by theora55 at 8:31 AM on December 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 8:31 AM on December 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
print ads were (and still are) much more valuable than online ads.
The online ad world is so busy trying to track users, and bill each other for data and run 14 services on every page that they've forgotten to to actually advertise.
posted by theora55 at 8:32 AM on December 23, 2015
The online ad world is so busy trying to track users, and bill each other for data and run 14 services on every page that they've forgotten to to actually advertise.
posted by theora55 at 8:32 AM on December 23, 2015
I have assumed that the reason the Washington Post beat the New York Times for page views was exactly how awful the WaPo's comments are and that their lack of moderation was intentional. I haven't really seen anything that disproves the idea, anyway.
posted by fedward at 8:35 AM on December 23, 2015
posted by fedward at 8:35 AM on December 23, 2015
It's good to know that the UK and Canada have their share of racist moron lunatics.
I was afraid we had a monopoly on them here in the states.
Stupidity knows no regional bias.
Unless commenting is geo-restricted the majority of commenters might be American even on Canadian sites.
posted by srboisvert at 8:36 AM on December 23, 2015
I was afraid we had a monopoly on them here in the states.
Stupidity knows no regional bias.
Unless commenting is geo-restricted the majority of commenters might be American even on Canadian sites.
posted by srboisvert at 8:36 AM on December 23, 2015
The Card Cheat: ""Join The Conversation!"
"That sounds great, don't mind if I..."
*rounds corner, sees what's going on*
*slowly backs away, rounds corner, breaks into a sprint*"
This is a Star Wars 7 gif I've been anticipating for days.
posted by boo_radley at 8:51 AM on December 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
"That sounds great, don't mind if I..."
*rounds corner, sees what's going on*
*slowly backs away, rounds corner, breaks into a sprint*"
This is a Star Wars 7 gif I've been anticipating for days.
posted by boo_radley at 8:51 AM on December 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am the online manager for a small market TV news site, and moderating/deleting comments can be, at times, a burden - and sometimes very disheartening, to say the least.
I understand that people have strong opinions, etc, and providing a forum for them can be enjoyable, and they occasionally provide insight, or help us fill in details about certain articles.
But the primary purpose of news sites is to INFORM people -- not to allow a free-for-all cesspool of nasty, vile, racist, and/or sexist bullshit comments.
posted by davidmsc at 9:00 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I understand that people have strong opinions, etc, and providing a forum for them can be enjoyable, and they occasionally provide insight, or help us fill in details about certain articles.
But the primary purpose of news sites is to INFORM people -- not to allow a free-for-all cesspool of nasty, vile, racist, and/or sexist bullshit comments.
posted by davidmsc at 9:00 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've recently discovered that the Daily Mail's site has started moderating comments under some articles.
To be fair, the problem with the Daily Mail is that the newsroom itself is a cesspool of bigotry and hatred.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:07 AM on December 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
To be fair, the problem with the Daily Mail is that the newsroom itself is a cesspool of bigotry and hatred.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:07 AM on December 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
newspapers have always inspired cranky and axe-grinding correspondence
Not just correspondence -- phone calls! My ex-husband was a photographer at the newspaper, and I had to get a separate line and not answer his anymore after dealing with too many angry/insane/both people. They'd look him up in the phone book and call to yell at him about how horrible he was to take a photograph of . . . . pretty much anything. Or about things he didn't take a photograph of, and should have.
posted by JanetLand at 9:08 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not just correspondence -- phone calls! My ex-husband was a photographer at the newspaper, and I had to get a separate line and not answer his anymore after dealing with too many angry/insane/both people. They'd look him up in the phone book and call to yell at him about how horrible he was to take a photograph of . . . . pretty much anything. Or about things he didn't take a photograph of, and should have.
posted by JanetLand at 9:08 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
"average person posts 3 racist comments a year"No, a MEAN person posts 3 racist comments a year.
;-)
posted by JoeBlubaugh at 10:07 AM on December 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
Norm!
posted by This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things at 10:17 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things at 10:17 AM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I got a sense of foreboding when the concept of the "wisdom of crowds" gained traction.
The Wisdom of the Mongolian Horde.
The Wisdom of the Giant Fire Ant Hill.
The Wisdom of the Massive Yeast Infection.
The Wisdom of the Spider Infestation.
Etc.
posted by Chitownfats at 10:57 AM on December 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
The Wisdom of the Mongolian Horde.
The Wisdom of the Giant Fire Ant Hill.
The Wisdom of the Massive Yeast Infection.
The Wisdom of the Spider Infestation.
Etc.
posted by Chitownfats at 10:57 AM on December 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
The Wisdom of the Internet of Things
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:03 AM on December 23, 2015
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:03 AM on December 23, 2015
Offering my perspective as a reporter for a magazine that has a new website:
There are a number of tools at our disposal to be able to moderate and manage comments. Our site engine automatically moderates comments for approval. Spam is deleted before we even see it, and it is trivially easy to scroll through the remainder in the moderation queue and be like "nope ... nope ... aw hell no ... ok ..." and so on. Takes like 20 minutes, a couple times per day. And that's a queue that corrals in comments from news, travel, nightlife, culture and so on.
That said, one of the biggest problems with comments under news articles is as people have pointed out: people with loads of time and/or a serious chip on their shoulder about a particular issue (we got one guy who I swear is just refreshing the "Muslim" and "Islam" tags on our site) do the bulk of the commenting. Reasonable people will engage with them briefly, and then give up. The neutral don't comment at all. You can tell from the Shares just how many people have something nice to say, as very few people with something shitty to say about a piece Share it, for a variety of reasons. So there's a disproportionate number of terrible people commenting.
But even worse than this is commenting "culture", if you will. Whether people are commenting under the article itself or on its post on Facebook (where, interestingly, people are actually less likely to shitpost), they very, very rarely read any farther than the headline before commenting. So they'll ask questions that are answered in the article, raises issues that have been addressed in the article, spout some misinformation that has been soundly refuted in the article, and so on. This prompts those who have RTFA to steer them back on track. This is a big drain on time and energy for everyone involved.
Personally, I think it's this kind of Headline Retorting that is the bigger problem with comments than ignorami. It doesn't matter if they even read the article if they can drop some poorly informed turd that gets heavily liked. The article is completely incidental; the comment is what matters.
For my part, I've just stopped reading the comments altogether unless I'm alerted to do so, especially under articles I wrote and have a personal stake in. It's just not worth it. I'm not sure the comments themselves are worth anyone reading. I have yet to see one that's added anything to the discussion. If someone wants to make a broader point or correct me, Twitter has been far more useful where that's concerned. I would be happy to disable comments on our articles altogether, if I had my say. But I don't, so instead, I just stop scrolling when I get to COMMENTS, close the tab, and make myself some more coffee.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:29 AM on December 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
There are a number of tools at our disposal to be able to moderate and manage comments. Our site engine automatically moderates comments for approval. Spam is deleted before we even see it, and it is trivially easy to scroll through the remainder in the moderation queue and be like "nope ... nope ... aw hell no ... ok ..." and so on. Takes like 20 minutes, a couple times per day. And that's a queue that corrals in comments from news, travel, nightlife, culture and so on.
That said, one of the biggest problems with comments under news articles is as people have pointed out: people with loads of time and/or a serious chip on their shoulder about a particular issue (we got one guy who I swear is just refreshing the "Muslim" and "Islam" tags on our site) do the bulk of the commenting. Reasonable people will engage with them briefly, and then give up. The neutral don't comment at all. You can tell from the Shares just how many people have something nice to say, as very few people with something shitty to say about a piece Share it, for a variety of reasons. So there's a disproportionate number of terrible people commenting.
But even worse than this is commenting "culture", if you will. Whether people are commenting under the article itself or on its post on Facebook (where, interestingly, people are actually less likely to shitpost), they very, very rarely read any farther than the headline before commenting. So they'll ask questions that are answered in the article, raises issues that have been addressed in the article, spout some misinformation that has been soundly refuted in the article, and so on. This prompts those who have RTFA to steer them back on track. This is a big drain on time and energy for everyone involved.
Personally, I think it's this kind of Headline Retorting that is the bigger problem with comments than ignorami. It doesn't matter if they even read the article if they can drop some poorly informed turd that gets heavily liked. The article is completely incidental; the comment is what matters.
For my part, I've just stopped reading the comments altogether unless I'm alerted to do so, especially under articles I wrote and have a personal stake in. It's just not worth it. I'm not sure the comments themselves are worth anyone reading. I have yet to see one that's added anything to the discussion. If someone wants to make a broader point or correct me, Twitter has been far more useful where that's concerned. I would be happy to disable comments on our articles altogether, if I had my say. But I don't, so instead, I just stop scrolling when I get to COMMENTS, close the tab, and make myself some more coffee.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:29 AM on December 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
Browsing with ublock and a default-deny setup spares me a lot of dealing with comments. On the other side. Especially disqus and facebook seem to double the load time for many sites.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:18 PM on December 23, 2015
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:18 PM on December 23, 2015
I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired.
I'm certainly not.
And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
posted by petebest at 1:31 PM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm certainly not.
And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
posted by petebest at 1:31 PM on December 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I use Ghostery, which blocks many things, including a lot of commenting widgets. Browsing most news sites, I'd never even know that they have comments.
I haven't missed it at all. If anything, it's made the web better.
I also recommend this Chrome plugin, which changes all YouTube comments to "HERP DERP DERP HERP HERP DERP HERP DERP DERP".
I liked a bunch of news sources on Facebook a while ago, in an effort to be better informed. That was a disaster. I tried not to read the comments, but they're right there, and they're just overflowing with idiocy and toxicity and petty vitriol. It actually increased my general anxiety level to see that every day—and, against my own common sense, I got sucked in a few times, because Lord knows it's imperative to correct people when they're wrong on the Internet.
So I unliked all those pages, and subscribed to RSS feeds with Feedly instead. Much better! No comments, plus it keeps my news consumption and my Facebooking separate, as they should be.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 3:02 PM on December 23, 2015
I haven't missed it at all. If anything, it's made the web better.
I also recommend this Chrome plugin, which changes all YouTube comments to "HERP DERP DERP HERP HERP DERP HERP DERP DERP".
I liked a bunch of news sources on Facebook a while ago, in an effort to be better informed. That was a disaster. I tried not to read the comments, but they're right there, and they're just overflowing with idiocy and toxicity and petty vitriol. It actually increased my general anxiety level to see that every day—and, against my own common sense, I got sucked in a few times, because Lord knows it's imperative to correct people when they're wrong on the Internet.
So I unliked all those pages, and subscribed to RSS feeds with Feedly instead. Much better! No comments, plus it keeps my news consumption and my Facebooking separate, as they should be.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 3:02 PM on December 23, 2015
As someone who regularly convenes diverse (socioeconomically, politically) groups of people in face-to-face conversation about policy issues, I don't think the masses are very ignorant. Most comment sections don't encourage/incentivize deep thought or reflection, so it's not surprising you don't get thoughtful discussion.
posted by MetalFingerz at 4:58 PM on December 23, 2015
posted by MetalFingerz at 4:58 PM on December 23, 2015
what advertiser really wants their ad next to a toxic hellstew of moronic comments? I
Most aren't that sensitive. In your field, maybe, but the local car dealership/jetski dealiership/snowplow service/real estate office doesn't care. Just checking my own town site, even nationals like Dick's Sporting Goods and Big Lots are next to comments.
posted by Miko at 8:34 PM on December 23, 2015
Most aren't that sensitive. In your field, maybe, but the local car dealership/jetski dealiership/snowplow service/real estate office doesn't care. Just checking my own town site, even nationals like Dick's Sporting Goods and Big Lots are next to comments.
posted by Miko at 8:34 PM on December 23, 2015
What makes me sad is that on many news sites you now have to be "connected" to see other comments. Come on, I don't care, throw me your adds, i like to lurk and see people arguing. Just don't demand me to give up my anonymity.
posted by nims at 5:32 AM on December 24, 2015
posted by nims at 5:32 AM on December 24, 2015
So they'll ask questions that are answered in the article, raises issues that have been addressed in the article,
I finally lost patience with these types of "drive-by comments" and now often delete them.
posted by davidmsc at 6:45 AM on December 24, 2015
I finally lost patience with these types of "drive-by comments" and now often delete them.
posted by davidmsc at 6:45 AM on December 24, 2015
« Older The Cookies you Make with the Stuff you've got... | “I think Lily's thoughts, I dream her dreams. She... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I disagree.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:39 PM on December 22, 2015 [84 favorites]