Off With Their Comments
Off With Their Comments (original article)
by John Scalzi -- Whatever
----------------------------------
The Toronto Star newspaper has decided to nix comments on its Web site . The reason:
We have passionate, opinionated readers who are eager to get involved in conversations about politics, education, municipal issues, sports and more. You’re talking about the news on thestar.com, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Tumblr, LinkedIn and more — and we want to be able to capture all of these conversations.
With that goal, we have turned off commenting on thestar.com effective Wednesday and instead we’ll be promoting and showcasing the comments our readers share across social media and in their letters and emails to our editors.
This is a polite and deflect-y way of saying “Our comments are a raging cesspool filled with the worst that humanity has to offer and you all make us look bad by smearing your feculent mindpoops on our property, so do it somewhere else and we’ll pick the ones we like to highlight.”
And you know what? Good for the Star . 
At this late stage in the evolution of the Internet, it’s become widely apparent that, barring committed moderation, comment threads trend quickly toward awful and vile, and that their ostensible reasons for existing (“free exchange of ideas,” “building community,” “keeping eyeballs on the site” etc) are not just negated but very often undermined by their content. Very few online sites, news, social or otherwise, benefit commercially or reputationally from their comment threads. There’s a very real and obvious reason why “NEVER READ THE COMMENTS” is a phrase that has gained such currency in the online world.
So why not just ax them? This is apparently the question that the Toronto Star folks asked themselves, and equally apparently could not find a sufficient reason to keep them. Again: Good for them. The site will become marginally more readable, and the newspaper won’t have to task some poor sad staffer to moderate the flood of bigots and/or numbskulls and/or spammers who traditionally populate the comment threads of major news sites (and minor ones, and indeed, any site where they are given a chance to thrive). There’s no downside.
But what about the bigots and/or numbskulls and/or spammers? What of them? Where will they go? Won’t their special snowflake voices be silenced? Well, yes, on the Toronto Star site. But there is the whole rest of the Internet, and creating one’s own outpost to fill with one’s own thoughts — and one’s own thoughts on the news media — is trivially easy. Look! I’m filling my own site with my own thoughts right now! Now, the drawback to the bigots/numbskulls/spammers is that their thoughts won’t get the benefit of being a free rider on the traffic the sites they’ve attached themselves to; they will have to attract readers on their own in the marketplace of ideas.
But that’s not fair! Oh, well. That’s life. Also, it is in fact entirely fair. As I noted to someone elsewhere on this topic, no one is owed an audience. The audience I have, as an example, comes from a quarter century of writing, including seventeen years(!) on this very site. You want my audience? The answer is clear: get cracking, folks.
I mentioned on Twitter last night that the world would largely be a better place if all commenting ability were to be vaporized on the Internet, and someone asked me if I would include my own site in that. I said yes, for the general good of humanity, I would be willing to sacrifice my own site’s commenting ability (and also, that for the first five years of the site, it did not allow comments, and yet it did just fine). It would be hard, but I’m pretty sure most of the people who I like would keep in touch. Email would still exist.
This does not mean, I should note, that I plan to get rid of comments here. I do actually moderate my comments, and because I do — and because there is in fact a community of people here who care for the quality of the site, often as much as I do — this site is in my mind one of the exceptions to the general rule that comment threads suck. It also helps that this is a very idiosyncratic sort of site; if it was all politics (or all tech or all anything) all the time I suspect it would attract more people committed to trolling and being douchecanoes on particular subjects, and also garner more fly-by commenters. But the site is about whatever is going on in my brain, and my brain skips around a bit. Variety of topics is useful.
But I’ll also note that especially over the last few years my patience with comments runs thinner and how I approach them is different. There was a period of time not long ago where I began to dread writing about contentious topics here because I knew it would require me to babysit comment threads, and it would take a whole lot of my time and brain cycles — both of which I could better spend on writing — to plink out obnoxious comments and otherwise act as referee. It genuinely began to affect my overall happiness. I had to change the way I thought about commenting here because of it.
Now I do things like turn off comment threads when I go to sleep, which means I don’t wake up dreading coming to my own site to see what some shitty human has posted on it. If I write on a contentious topic but don’t feel like referring comments, I just plain leave the comments off (which, incidentally, has no measurable effect on how widely a piece is read, as far as I can see). And I’m quicker to mallet comments and punt people out of threads if I decide they’re out of line.
Basically, I changed seeing comments as something “of course” and more as “at my pleasure.” If I’m not going to be happy they’re there, then they won’t be.
Which is a point of view I think more people — and more sites — are beginning to take on: What does allowing comments get me? Does it make me happy or not? Will my site be better for them, or not? In the Toronto Star’s case, the answer apparently was that the site wasn’t better for them, so out they went.
Once more: Good call. I hope more people and sites ask themselves the same questions, and ditch the comments if they don’t measure up.
Tags
Who is online
147 visitors
For those members who are interested in dialog.
Well, good. I'm glad to see that someone is fed up besides me.
I wonder if comments about poop accidents on the couch will make the cut?
I suppose that depends on the topic. Is the Comment pertinent or not?
We have a member here that has an ability to arrive there from just about any starting point.
This article has really good bones as a jumping spot for a good discussion. Although it does refer to online publications, which we are not, it is talking about the quality of the discussion. I think that it's better for the seeder/ author of a discussion to set forth what their expectations are. All of ours are different. I don't mind off topic comments and even silly ones, but that is me. Other's do mind, and that's OK, too! But these should be clear to those who respond. It might cut down on the frustration level.
This article has really good bones as a jumping spot for a good discussion.
Ummm... Yes. That's kinda sorta why I seeded it...
I think that it's better for the seeder/ author of a discussion to set forth what their expectations are.
That was my intent with the Red Rules. Frankly, they have never worked, because too many members decided to subvert them. They're better than nothing... but we could do better.
Scalzi says Comments work on his blog "because there is in fact a community of people here who care for the quality of the site". That seems to me to be essential. What do members of NT care about? Is the quality of the site important to them? What do we mean by "quality of the site"? What if a clash between your "expectations" and my "expectations" diminishes the "quality of the site"?
Do we all want the membership to grow?
Why would it... or why wouldn't it?
I don't mind off topic comments and even silly ones, but that is me. Other's do mind, and that's OK, too! But these should be clear to those who respond.
This is a key topic. How to make it clear that silly is not wanted? How to define silly? What to do when someone persists?
What does each of us want NT to be?
Dear Friend Bob Nelson; Thank you for providing us with an important and stimulating topic about which to think and comment.
Whatever we do, there will be hills and valleys.
One problem with any action is the law of unintended consequences.
Some are bent on destroying every site they visit until the site is gone, or they are banished for life. Whatever new system or modification to protocol is created, they will find a way to game the system.
Those who come for a variety of reasons such as fellowship, inspiration, knowledge, support and civil debate get turned off very rapidly when their voices and efforts are drowned out, and/or when the atmosphere is so poisoned that they need to move on to pastures greener elsewhere. Some leave the Internet entirely.
A problem with banning all comments is that some threads depend on relevant commentary to create a sense of community, well being, friendship; and the chance to extract/impart knowledge and perspectives.
My articles are an example of this. When I share things that move me, I always encourage others to share what moves them. If we are honest, we know that in metaphysics there are many more questions than answers. We also recognize that a diversity of perspectives and approaches is normal and healthy.
All I ask is that people be respectful of others, remain on-point, and be positive. Those are three of my Four B's. The fourth is that if they are unwilling to do this, they be gone from my threads. There are others in which they can do what they do. It may be welcomed there. I have a responsibility to protect those who come in good will.
If comments are banned in totality, or filtered through a prism other than that of the original author (I do not seed, I write my own pieces). the opportunity for those who constructively contribute find their voices silenced.
For example, in a recent discussion thread I shares the very positive experiences I encountered each time I met fellow authors and seeders for this and other sites. In concluding the article I asked that people share their positive meetings. I also opened up the opportunity for members of this community to use the Private Notes section to set up local and area jubilees. This helps the community bond. It also makes for great times, and life time good memories. All that would be lost by comment banning. This isn't good for the site.
To no success, I have in past advocated that at least original authors have the editorial discretion to delete posts which violated the clearly expressed rules they leave for the thread in the first comment. This allows for free and open discourse in a cordial and collegial mood among sincere writers. It also removes, and if necessary bans those whose agenda is other than to promote the best interests of those seeking peace, acceptance, free expression and pleasant company. Original articles remain the intellectual property of the author. The right place to decide what is deleted should rest with those who create and own the article.
There are checks and balances to be added here. A warning that a post violates the author's directions should be given, along with a time frame to delete the post. An opportunity to re-post in line with article rules should be given. Help in case the poster doesn't know how to do this can occur in private notes, away from others.
If the offensive post isn't removed, the author then has the right and responsibility to those faithful to the monograph intent to delete the rule violating message. If a poster repeats the offense in three different discussions, a three strikes and you are out ban from future participation in the authors threads should be allowed.
Sites that allow a few immature people to ruin it for the rest go extinct.
many dislike discord, vitriol, lowest common denominator and childish behavior.
Most prefer quality, intellectual stimulation and cordiality socially. Vox Populi is in play here.
This is my answer. Yours makes sense. Mine is certainly not fool proof.
We both detest censorship. Screening and rule enforcement is necessary because the quality of a site is only as good as the people who contribute to it, moderate it and govern it.
I welcome your and other feedback to this post. I respect and value your views.
Thanks for a most interesting and valuable thread.
Peace and Abundant Blessings.
Enoch.
Thank you, Enoch.
For me, Comments are essential. I desire conversation. Exchange. So I need Comments.
The problem is that many members use Comments for other purposes than dialog. For the site, the question is how to allow members a maximum of freedom without allowing trolling.