Websites try to control nasty comments
By Barbara Ortutay, AP
NEW YORK — Mix blatant bigotry with poor spelling. Add a dash of ALL CAPS. Top it off with a violent threat. And there you have it: A recipe for the worst of online comments, scourge of the Internet.
Blame anonymity, blame politicians, blame human nature. But a growing number of websites are reining in the Wild West of online commentary. Companies including Google and the Huffington Post are trying everything from deploying moderators to forcing people to use their real names in order to restore civil discourse. Some sites, such as Popular Science, are banning comments altogether.
The efforts put sites in a delicate position. User comments add a lively, fresh feel to videos, stories and music. And, of course, the longer visitors stay to read the posts, and the more they come back, the more a site can charge for advertising.
What websites don’t want is the kind of off-putting nastiness that spewed forth under a recent CNN.com article about the Affordable Care Act.
“If it were up to me, you progressive libs destroying this country would be hanging from the gallows for treason. People are awakening though. If I were you, I’d be very afraid,” wrote someone using the name “JBlaze.”
YouTube, which is owned by Google, has long been home to some of the Internet’s most juvenile and grammatically incorrect comments. The site caused a stir last month when it began requiring people to log into Google Plus to write a comment. Besides herding users to Google’s unified network, the company says the move is designed to raise the level of discourse in the conversations that play out under YouTube videos.
One such video, a Cheerios commercial featuring an interracial family, met with such a barrage of racist responses on YouTube in May that General Mills shut down comments on it altogether.
“Starting this week, when you’re watching a video on YouTube, you’ll see comments sorted by people you care about first,” wrote YouTube product manager Nundu Janakiram and principal engineer Yonatan Zunger in a blog post announcing the changes. “If you post videos on your channel, you also have more tools to moderate welcome and unwelcome conversations. This way, YouTube comments will become conversations that matter to you.”
Anonymity has always been a major appeal of online life. Two decades ago, the New Yorker magazine ran a cartoon with a dog sitting in front of a computer, one paw on the keyboard. The caption read: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” At its best, anonymity allows people to speak freely without repercussions. It allows whistle blowers and protesters to espouse unpopular opinions. At its worst, it allows people to spout off without repercussions. It gives trolls and bullies license to pick arguments, threaten and abuse.
But anonymity has been eroding in recent years. On the Internet, many people may know not only your name, but also your latest musings, the songs you’ve listened to, your job history, who your friends are and even the brand of soap you prefer.
“It’s not so much that our offline lives are going online, it’s that our offline and online lives are more integrated,” says Mark Lashley, a professor of communications at La Salle University in Philadelphia. Facebook, which requires people to use their real names, played a big part in the seismic shift.
“The way the Web was developed, it was unique in that the avatar and the handle were always these things people used to go by. It did develop into a Wild West situation,” he says, adding that it’s no surprise that Google and other companies are going this route. “As more people go online and we put more of our lives online, we should be held accountable for things we say.”
Nearly three-quarters of teens and young adults think people are more likely to use discriminatory language online or in text messages than in face to face conversations, according to a recent poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and MTV. The poll didn’t distinguish between anonymous comments and those with real identities attached.
The Huffington Post is also clamping down on vicious comments. In addition to employing 40 human moderators who sift through readers’ posts for racism, homophobia, hate speech and the like, the AOL-owned news site is also chipping away at anonymous commenting. Previously, anyone could respond to an article posted on the site by creating an account, without tying it to an email address. This fall, HuffPo began requiring people to verify their identity by connecting their accounts to an email address.
“We are reaching a place where the Internet is growing up,” says Jimmy Soni, managing editor of HuffPo. “These changes represent a maturing (online) environment.”
This doesn’t mean that people have to use their names when commenting. But Soni says the changes have already made a difference in the quality of the comments. The lack of total anonymity, while not a failsafe method, offers people a “gut check moment,” he says. There have been “significantly fewer things that we would not be able to share with our mothers,” in the HuffPo comments section since the change, Soni says.
Newspapers are also turning toward regulated comments. Of the largest 137 U.S. newspapers — those with daily circulation above 50,000 — nearly 49 percent ban anonymous commenting, according to Arthur Santana, assistant communications professor at the University of Houston. Nearly 42 percent allow anonymity, while 9 percent do not have comments at all.
Curbing anonymity doesn’t always help. Plenty of people are fine attaching their names and Facebook profiles to poorly spelled outbursts that live on long after their fury has passed.
In some cases, sites have gone further. Popular Science, the 141-year-old science and technology magazine, stopped allowing comments of any kind on its news articles in September.
While highlighting responses to articles about climate change and abortion, Popular Science online editor Suzanne LaBarre announced the change and explained in a blog post that comments can be “bad for science.”
Because “comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories,” wrote LaBarre.
We can’t wait to see the response to this story.
The media is no longer an unbiased source of journalism. Even sites like Lake Tahoe News (no offense to the website) fail to act independently and report the news solely to advance the narrative.
Quite candidly, if it weren’t for the comments which more often than not tell the entire story, I wouldn’t bother visiting news sites.
If it weren’t for the comment here I would have no reason to believe that evolution denying right wing freaks do more than stand on street corners with signs.
I often see comments demonstrating mental illness. Persons posting comments that disrespect other persons are displaying the traits common to narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. The second example here is sociopathy. In anti social personality disorder ( a sociopath ) there is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others. Here, again we see another example from cosa pescado. Notice above where Bitter Clinger hasn’t attacked anyone using an insult. Further, Bitter Clinger hasn’t disagreed with a previous comment. Bitter Clinger only provides us with his idea that he likes reading the comments, and he tells us this is how he gets “the entire story”. Then you see the next comment by the person displaying a symptom of sociopathy. Cosa pescado immediately attacks the “comment here” that came from B. C. who intended no disrespect. Cosa pescado identifies those whom he disagrees with, then he attacks using an insult, calling them “freaks:””. I have seen better examples posted here by Bijou Bill and a few others. Here, as is with other examples, there is an unprovoked attack upon an innocent person. The article calls these people “bullies”. I would tend to describe these persons as being mentally ill. I would highly recommend that persons posting comments here remain anonymous.
With regards to the LTN comments section, I personally look forward to reading the opposing views of either the article, as sometimes I see a hunt of bias in the writing, or the comments of others. Sometimes the comments make we question my personal opinion and others times it makes me question the source of the comment. What I do enjoy about the LTN readers is when some of the regulars cross the line such as with a racist comment or bring politics in when it has nothing to do with a tragic example, I and others are quick to point it out and usually the commentor seems to realize it was not their best written opinion as they quiet down for a while. Other times when the opposing views share a arguable perspective, such as the Stateline Corridor or law, I enjoy the disagreement that either changes or confirms my prior perspective.
I feel the important thing is we not forget to keep an open mind, listen to others, and NOT MAKE IT PERSONAL. Counter the other perspective, not the other person.
Great job LTN for providing a forum for us to share opinions!!!
tahoe Pizza Eater,
I see you have added a make believe psychiatrist to your online team of delusional personae that has previously included a fact-free scientist, clueless Jr. detective and a pathetic wannabe lawyer.
You just can’t stand it when someone pushes back against the endless stream of ignorant wingnuttery that accompanies almost every article posted here on LTN.
This latest vapid diatribe carries as much intellectual weight as all your other pontifications, none.
However, I do agree with your inadvertent self-diagnosis as a narcissistic/sociopath. By posting comments here that attempt to insult, disrespect and attack others for their opinions from the world of reality, you have turned the mirror directly on yourself. Congratulations, maybe that’s progress for you. Happy Holidays!
JohnnyGP,
I agree with most of what you say but sometimes I think it’s necessary to respond to personal attacks.
Psychoses are interesting things. They often allow behavior to be observed and noted, but only in others. What I find to be particularly disturbing is the ability to post “facts” that clearly are not while calling others’ comments delusional. How about we agree to offer real facts instead of opinions labeled as facts? Opinions are important and respect for each citizen’s opinion is absolutely necessary in a democratic republic. Attempting to marginalize another citizen does nothing for our republic. Happy New Year!
I totally agree with the article above. Thanks for posting it Kae. I think responding to articles that we read is a good thing and a chance for interaction and growth. Unfortunately, there are too many who use the comment section as a soapbox to push their point and do so, so blatantly that you can see the venom flowing from their finger tips. Whenever I read the articles on LTN and go down to the comment section, I am almost guaranteed to see the same individuals sparring trying to push their point and it is many times a nasty discourse. A dialogue to get your point of view out there is a good thing, but when you start to make it personal and put another person down for their particular point of view, it goes way beyond civility. Case in point, when I wrote my article on the Shut down of the USFS concessionaires earlier in the year, there was one lady that went on and on putting me down (very nasty) for my viewpoint. She had the right to put down what she felt, but had she had to put her name down as a respondent, I would like to think that her comments would have been more respectful. We can disagree and even try to convince others of our point of view, but when we can post our comments in anonymity, there is really nothing to stop us from going way beyond being civil and all that does is ruffle the feathers of the others we are sparring with. Nothing gets across but bitterness.
My political activism started in the 60s with participation in marches and demonstrations in support of the Civil Rights Act and in opposition to the war in Vietnam. Actually getting out in the streets and organizing like-minded citizens to force change from the policies of those in power that found wars and discrimination to be useful to them in their pursuit of power and dominance. I had absolutely no respect for the opinions of the bigots and the militarists and I wasn’t afraid to take action and speak out against them at that point in time and I continued to vociferously oppose these same forces that brought us the failure of reaganomics and the stupid trade deals and deregulation of Clinton’s GOP-lite centrism. I think the resulting corporate/money takeover of our gov’t at the highest levels is a direct result of the go along to get along laziness of the average citizen who doesn’t want to take a stand because they think some kind of “civil discourse” is going to eventually get some positive results for those that currently have no power.
Here’s a clue: There is no “democratic republic” anymore because of that kind of thinking. We are now living in a plutocracy and if you don’t believe that then you are in fact, delusional. I’m not afraid to stand up to and marginalize forces of what I perceive to be the enemy of our society and to those that willingly facilitate their goals. Politely accepting nonsense in an effort to be accommodating will only insure the status quo for generations to come.
Well written article by Barbra Ortutay. Yes, there is alot of name calling, personal attacks, accusations and distortions of peoples comments in the comment section here at LTN. I asked for civility here some time ago and took some good natured ribbing from fellow readers for doing so. As long as it’s not spiteful or mean spirited I’m fine with it, just don’t call me “stupid” or I “should be ashamed of my ignorance” along with some other insults. Speaking of insults the same person said of me that I was an “insult to truth”. All that wonderful stuff came from one person who decided to go after me because of my political views. I’m not a libertarin, far from it, I just don’t agree with that philosophy. I don’t call Dogula, Dog Face as some do , not only is that disrespectful it’s hurtful to that person.
As far as anonymous names I took one because after getting a few disturbing phone calls at home from a couple of comments I made here, and my street address is in the book, I decided I had to come up with a name. So at one of the neighborhood cookouts and potluck dinners we all made up campfire names and “Old Long Skiis” was born.
So I say keep the comments coming just show a little respect and don’t say anything that goes after an individual or group that is hurtful, personal or denigrates their point of view or their beliefs. We can agree to disagree…I say kill em’ with kindness!!! Old Long Winded
Bob : I agree with you, but ; There are some regular people whom comment here that deliberately destroy this sharing of ideas. Bijou Bill for instance. I’ve seen times when people comment respectfully, produce a comment that uses the words, “I disagree”; Then they explain why they disagree. This is what you are looking for in the comment section, and this is where we all can learn an important point of view that wasn’t produced in the news article. Then comes on someone like Bijou Bill insulting the person offering only his attack upon that person. I’ve seen good discussions broken up by these people. Their disrespect often includes insults. Just take a good look for yourself, at the comments above. I quoted words from the American Psychiatric Association, and could easily apply the descriptions to Bijou Bill and some others. He makes it easy for me. You see him try to turn my analysis against me, but if you are paying attention, Bill only further incriminates himself. I didn’t apply my point of view, I am actually applying the descriptions originating from the American Psychiatric Association. Then through an examination of these people’s comments, you see how the mental illness is a fit. Put aside B. B. for a moment, and go back and see how Bitter Clinger is attacked by Cosa Pescado, after B.C. said nothing remotely wrong. You can see that Cosa Pescado seeks out a conflict, where there is no conflict. And you see how there is disrespect when C. P. uses his insult. There is consistency in their methods that matches the A. P. A’s description of mental illness. It’s not information coming from me. It’s information published by the American Psychiatric Association. So, there is a strong chance we’re reading comments coming from the mentally ill.
To B. B. : You seem to have described yourself as having Paranoid Personality Disorder. Without considering your last comment, this disorder could easily been mistaken for another disorder. You perceive other people as being your enemy, when in fact, they are not your enemy. People come on to this forum posting differing points of view. A good example of such is the recent Paid Parking issue. Some people think that paid parking will produce money for the city, while others point out this can be harmful for the local economy. B. B. , you are wrongly perceiving persons having a differing point of view as persons that are your enemy. This can be symptomatic from your past experiences. You shouldn’t avoid using your past experiences altogether. But you should make an effort to consider the other person’s point of view before labeling the person as your “enemy”. You seem to have jumped past the stage where you consider a person’s point of view, and have gone straight to your labeling the person as being your enemy. Your attacks and insults upon persons in this forum would be disturbing to any psychiatrist.
Pretty much the only comments I bother to read anymore are the ones posted under “Then and Now” and other items of historic or cultural interest. The comments often add to the information provided in the articles.
I’ve stopped reading comments attached to more provocative articles. I used to read them in hopes of participating in mature and rational discourse. Unfortunately, I don’t find that at LTN. If I didn’t value the comments on the non-partisan items so much, I would want comments at LTN to be discontinued entirely.
Yes tahoe Pizza Eater, there’s an amazing lack of just the simple retort, “Here’s why you’re incorrect…”, or “Here’s why I disagree with your comment…”
And instead then of engaging in a discussion, there’s labeling, name calling, changing the subject, not talking about the discussed story and putting words in someone else’s mouth that they didn’t say!
On those rare instances when someone has simply taken the time to point out where they disagree with a statement of mine, my knowledge does grow! And don’t know if it’s ever changed my mind on something? But it has at times caused certain positions to soften!
So I hope in the coming ’14, the level of discussion on this LTN blog can be elevated!!
I for one condone the comments. Journalism died years ago, when objective reporting became a thing of the past.
Inside every liberal is a tyrannical statist just screaming to get out.
With the liberal press, they do nothing but further the liberal cause by promoting, I’m sorry, I mean reporting on it.
If it weren’t for the comments section, we’d never have opposing views to counter the left leaning story telling.
So it appears that some of us agree the insults are unwanted. What I and some other people want to see is a discussion that begins with the words, “I disagree” or , “I agree”. Then statements that support the person’s position on the matter. Even when we disagree with each other, we don’t need to insult the other point of view. Notice, I used the words, “some of us”. Some of us are respectful, and there will be some that won’t be.
A. B. I agree on your latest comments. Liberal media are dominating in their profession. In order for our opposing views to be noticed, we need to use the comment section. Without use of the comment section any person reading a liberal article could get the wrong idea that the majority of people agree with the liberal agenda.
I’m sorry, but what some view as a liberally based media bias, in reality is a lack of opposing views that actually hold any water!
In my defense, if i way, i would like to submit as evidence, the fact that evolution is well documented, and that the people who deny it, are freaks.
I was being sincere. I honestly did not know that people who publicly deny evolution existed.
The anti science mentality that perpetuates the denial of evolution is something I am strongly against, and I think it is a danger to our society. Apparently that is narcissistic personality disorder. I should take that amateur psychobabble to heart, and go get help. Too bad I am Irish.
After reading all the comments I agree that calling people ‘mentally ill’ and also ‘stupid’ and ‘should be ashamed of ignorance’-and then accusing others with psychobabble is indeed-delusional-and should cease and desist
C. P. I’ve checked on your comment posted above and still maintain that your statements are an unwarranted attack upon B. C. Bitter Clinger didn’t say anything that a reasonable person could interpret as being insulting. Yet, you choose to attack him. There is no one here talking about evolution. The article we’re commenting on is about internet bullies whom use insults and threats. Maybe you should get professional help.
Happy Snow Globe everyone, a (premature) Happy New Year and lastly a Happy Birthday to me. Yes, today I turn 60 years old. Hard to believe I made it through all these years. I’m surprised all these kids are coming to town for Snow Globe are actually here to celebrate my birthday. I hope they don’t, as in the last 2 years, litter my street with empty Pabst Blue Ribbon cans, bottles of vodka, cigarrete butts and vomit. So if the Globers keep it under control and no one dies, good for them.
My Birthday wish? SNOW, and lots of it. Things are looking pretty bleak right now for any storms in the forseeable future. If we have another wimpy winter like last year we will all be hurtin’ for certain.
Now if only Snow Globe would have some Zappa music, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppilin or just about anything other than the loud thumping bass that rattles my windows. Sorry, gettin’ cranky in my old age.
Take care,OLD long skiis
The only reason websites allow comments is money, as the article points out. “And, of course, the longer visitors stay to read the posts, and the more they come back, the more a site can charge for advertising.”
Each time someone clicks to read an article, the time they stay on the article writing a comment (just like this one), and each time they come back to argue with other bloggers, each click, each comment and post increases the number of ‘visitors’ as “hits” to the site, which in turn is sold to advertisers as potential customers.
Bloggers typically come back more often over debate, than agreement. People against something, come back to the site more often to see if others agree with their point. The more anger and debate created, the more visitors to the site, the more those visits increase the number of hits, which increases potential ad rates or those who might want to advertise.
Allowing comments or not has nothing to do with what is good, right, wrong, ethics, or any other nonsense, its about what is the best way a site can generate more hits to generate more ads to increase their income. Money, isn’t there a saying, “follow the money?” It’s always about the money.
Happy Birthday, OLS! And many, many more.
I’ll join you in wishing for some snow, too!
Well, when a person writes a letter to the editor they ask for name and contact info. Blogs are blogs; a lot of cheap talk.