What Your Online Comments Say About You

circletimessquare writes: The New York Times has a piece summarizing some recent research and recent discussion about the quality, or lack thereof, of online comments. "[Washington State University researchers] found that the comments on a public-service announcement about vaccination affected readers' attitudes as strongly as the P.S.A. itself did. When commenters were identified by their level of expertise with the subject (i.e. as doctors), their comments were more influential than the P.S.A.s. Online readers may put a lot of stock in comments because they view commenters 'as kind of similar to themselves,' said Mr. Weber — 'they're reading the same thing, commenting on the same thing.' And, he added, many readers, especially those who are less Internet-savvy, assume commenters 'know something about the subject, because otherwise they wouldn't be commenting on it.' The mere act of commenting, then, can confer an unearned aura of credibility."

Comments

First Post

[GloomE]

But it proves nothing.

Re:First Post

[quantaman]

John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory:

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad

Face it, it explains everything.

I think it explains half, mostly the trolling half.

The other half is the fact that people speak up when they're passionate about something, and there's nothing that makes you as passionate as thinking you know the truth when everyone else is wrong.

Personally I think the solution is to speak up even when you don't care that much. You can't convince the fringe players that they're wrong, but you can demonstrate to them (and others) that the fringe viewpoint is a minority one.

Re:First Post

[Kevin Fishburne]

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad

Face it, it explains everything.

This would be a useful equation if it weren't for the fact that the person in question was a fuckwad long before the anonymity or audience came. The idea that a thoughtful, virtuous person somehow becomes a troll because of anonymity and an audience is bullshit. The only thing anonymity does is melt away the facade of civility a fuckwad has carefully crafted for themselves.

Yeah, right

[msobkow]

I most certainly do not assume anyone is an "expert" because they're posting an internet comment. I assume they're a typical, uneducated, ill-informed, panic-mongering, fear-driven sheep. And I presume everyone else thinks of my comments the same way.

The public, as a whole, is comprised of people who are of less than average intelligence 50% of the time. And from what I see commented on news sites and such, the dumber they are, the more they have to say...

Re:Yeah, right

[AmiMoJo]

It does work, and you see it used all the time on TV. When some opinion mouthpiece masquerading as news wants to convince you of something they will often find an "expert" with some dubious credentials. How often do you hear phrases like "scientists believe" without reference to who those people, or if they are just claiming to be scientists without any real credentials.

Claiming false credentials is one of the most basic and effective tactics used by people trying to manipulate public opinion, such as astroturfers and criminal security services like GCHQ. The Intercept has some leaked info on how they do it.

Re:Yeah, right

[Culture20]

The public, as a whole, is comprised of people who are of less than average intelligence 50% of the time.

It's a bell curve, not a V. People with IQ "the exact number considered average" are the most populous compared to all other points on the chart. If IQ "average" was a score impossible to achieve, then your "50% below, 50% above" concept would make sense. As it is, it's a little less than 50% for both. And if "average" is a range rather than a precise number (most people consider it to be so with intelligence), then the percentages of population above and below drop considerably.

Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[mi]

This research clearly shows, the comments must be regulated — to ensure, only the certified experts are allowed to express opinions, and that all different points of view are fairly represented. The current so-called "freedom" is, obviously, putting us in danger — and it is over-rated anyway.

To keep the "playing field" level, the hitherto unregulated online news-sources (which also attract the most dangerous comments) shall be subjected to the same rules as TV-broadcasters, thus shutting down the smaller and annoyingly quirky ones among them. The respected (and, incidentally, government-supporting) establishments will thus be (smartly) helped.

Dissemination of information deemed incorrect by the benevolent and omniscient regulators, or failures to represent all points of view fairly, shall lead to the withdrawals of certification and any other licenses — easy to achieve without much fuss because a license, by definition is a permission granted by the Executive, and can be withdrawn (or not-renewed) without having to convince the skeptical Judiciary. Anybody talking about the First Amendment shall be ignored (and put on a watch-list) as a fringe crazy — this is not the 60-ies, you can not protest like that .

That Explains Why Online News Is Removing Comments

[mentil]

That explains why many news organizations are removing the ability to comment from their sites: because it was undermining the effectiveness of the favored propaganda they pass along as 'news'. Remember kids, journalistic bias is all about WHICH propaganda you decide to go to press with.

Don't add Internet to everything.

[houghi]

Just talk to people and you will se the same thing. Be it in a meeting, in a pub or wherever. Countries are based on the priciple that they are lead by people who know what they are doing,. while in the end it is more about who said it best.

So it happens in the real world. It has happend since ages. Why would it surprise anybody that it happens on the Internet?

What did they actually learn?

[Karmashock]

It didn't appear that they figured anything out that any moron on the internet wouldn't simply take for granted.

  It is painful... why does the new york times exist? They still are obviously baffled by the internet.

Re:That Explains Why Online News Is Removing Comme

[tverbeek]

Or maybe the comments are just so full of utter garbage posted by the most degenerate members of society that it turns off regular readers.

Often the comments *are* better

[Bogtha]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, on Slashdot of all places. How many times have you seen a shitty submission here and comments correcting it? It's practically Slashdot's unofficial slogan: "yeah, the stories are awful, but I come for the comments".