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

[Anonymous Coward]

First post is dangerous dude!! You can trust me I'm an internet commenter.

Re:First Post

[thieh]

John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory:

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad

Face it, it explains everything.

Re:First Post

[Lumpy]

Problem is it has evolved, even with real information attached to you, a lot of gamers on Xbox Live are complete fuckwads. I have stopped public online gaming completely because of it. Just try and play GTA V in a public game.

Re:First Post

[monkeyzoo]

I comment, therefore, I am... smart.

Re:First Post

[halivar]

If you don't put a trigger warning on posts like this, it constitutes a misogynist micro-aggression, you insensitive clod.

Re:First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

> John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com]:
> Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad
> Face it, it explains everything.

Score:5, Informative

Really?

This is /. moderation in the last decade. The trolls have won. Some are registered.

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.

Re:First Post

[Bite The Pillow]

I have always understood it to be an external observation. A seemingly normal person plus anonymity can appear to be a total fuckwad. That obviates any jekyll-and-hyde personality change.

In other words, almost exactly your last sentence.

It also represents the case where someone who is only a partial fuckwad in real life appears "normal" in person and as a complete fuckwad on the internet. That is a more typical scenario, given that the number of partial fuckwards is on a sliding scale, and only a few of those are the total fuckwads. And you dis say "was a fuckwad" instead of "was a total fuckwad".

Given that presumption, anonymity exacerbates the fuckwad's fuckwadity, rather than simply uncovering it as you suggest, which is the point.

Re:First Post

[russotto]

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.

Well, we know one thing that DOESN'T work -- censoring the "fringe" players, and make agreements with all the other forums you can find to also censor them. All that does is convince them that there's a conspiracy to silence them. (why this should convince them so is left as an exercise)

Re:First Post

[epyT-R]

Uh, are you kidding? The quake community was ruthless. The trashtalk was rampant, but it did keep the whiners to a minimum. For those of us with skin and spines, it was part of the fun. Today, instead, we have whole communities of easily offended whiners demanding easy buttons.

Re:First Post

[gzuckier]

John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory:

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad

Face it, it explains everything.

Same principle as roadrage.

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

[smallfries]

So your presumption is wrong.

What have you learned about how *other people* filter and interpret information they read in comments? In particular maybe you have learned something about how uniformed comments influence the majority of people that read them, regardless of whether or not you are in that majority.

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

[guises]

Both his presumption and assumption are wrong. Is it better to assume that everyone commenting is always foolish and wrong, or that everyone commenting is expert and right? Neither assumption is correct.

I have my own set of assumptions about the character of commenters, assumptions which are usually influenced by the site I'm reading, but even when I go into a thread with the assumption that there will be a bunch of people spouting off with an air of authority on some subject of which they actually know very little, I still find that sometimes their comments will influence me. It's a difficult situation. It's the punditry problem really - a pundit can declare some nonsensical shit to be factual and the honest-to-god truth, and you're basically left with three options: first, you can believe them because they certainly seem to know what they're talking about and they wouldn't lie outright, would they? Second, you can disbelieve them but always have this small lingering doubt floating around in the back of your head. A suspicion that maybe there was a nugget of truth in there. Third, you can spend hours fact checking the claim in order to eventually, finally, reassure yourself that yes, they are lying sacks of shit and no part of what they said was representative of the truth.

How often do you actually take the third option? How often can you, really? That's like asking someone how many EULAs they read.

Re:Yeah, right

[reboot246]

I'm an expert commentator!! No, I'm not necessarily an expert on any particular subject; I'm simply an expert at commenting.

This comment should be modded "expert". :)

Re:Yeah, right

[PopeRatzo]

No, I'm not necessarily an expert on any particular subject; I'm simply an expert at commenting.

I'm an expert at reading comments.

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.

Re:Yeah, right

[radl33t]

If you don't have time for #3, remain skeptical and chose #2 Simple.

Re:Yeah, right

[jep77]

You seem to be an expert on this topic. I, on the other hand, am completely average.

Re:Yeah, right

[monkeyzoo]

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.

Obviously, no Slashdot reader would fall victim to this mistake!!!
NOT because they are more Internet-savvy, but because they have been cured of any tendency to assume commenters know anything about the subject! Ha ha

Re:Yeah, right

[s.petry]

I think the phrase you are looking for is an "appeal to authority"

Re:Yeah, right

[AthanasiusKircher]

Third, you can spend hours fact checking the claim in order to eventually, finally, reassure yourself that yes, they are lying sacks of shit and no part of what they said was representative of the truth.

How often do you actually take the third option? How often can you, really? That's like asking someone how many EULAs they read.

All the time, actually.

Before the internet was so comprehensive, not very much, I'll admit. But now I can search for information on just about anything, and within a minute (not "hours"), I can be reading professional journal articles on the topic.

If I see a post I know is right (or at least includes a bunch of stuff I know is right already), I generally skim it or pass by. If I see a post that I know is wrong, I may reply with what I know, or I may just ignore it depending on how much I care.

But if I see a post making assertions that seem more speculative or which make strong claims that contradict what I thought I knew, I want to know the truth. So, I often go a-searching. Generally within a couple minutes, I can either locate a reputable source that seems to verify it, or a reputable source that shows the poster was an idiot -- or, I often find both the spurious claims the poster was making along with someone else who has better credentials or better data debunking it.

That's a primary way I learn new stuff in the internet age. You should try it sometime. Sure, I don't fact-check comments on things I don't care about at all, because I don't often read comments or stories I don't care about (or only briefly skim comments looking for anything interesting).

Anyhow, that's about the main reason I read comments -- I want someone to tell me something new. And if it seems legitimately new, I generally want to know more about it -- not just accept it as truth and go around telling people, "Yeah, I heard a guy on the internet talking about X, and you won't believe what he said! Let me tell you about it..."

That's useless and a waste of everyone's time. My default assumption is skepticism. If you're going to believe any useless crap on the internet without checking it yourself, then I have a bridge to sell you. What I often like about discussion here on Slashdot is that people don't have a lot of patience for that kind of nonsense. Yes, it gets modded up sometimes, but then someone else frequently comes along who does know something and can provide better citations. It's not a perfect system, but it works better than most.

Re:Yeah, right

[sudon't]

Yeah, my god, this article, if true, really blows my mind. Ninety-percent of what I see in comments sections is pure idiocy. It's difficult for me to imagine anyone looking at that dreck and taking it seriously. Of course, half the studies reported are reported incorrectly, or completely bogus themselves.

Re:Yeah, right

[Bite The Pillow]

The study was by a woman (and her team I assume) looking at comments about her previous study about how society views gender. The conclusion was that men discriminate and women feel discriminated against.

She looked at these comments, attempting to determine if the commentator was male or female, and broadly classify the comment's content as accepting or dismissing the conclusion.

I get a really strong sense of selection bias (self selection), and the author generally taking the position that the original study's conclusion is true. While I don't dispute that, it seems really easy to make a mistake when classifying comments directed at your work, and therefore being very personal, and possibly making bad decisions about methodology.

I can in no way support this study, even though its conclusions are fairly obviously correct.

Re:Yeah, right

[gzuckier]

Useful internet comment section advice:
if it doesn't have a reference to a primary source, it's probably BS
suspicious phrases:
"I saw a report"; meaning, somebody said in a comment section, I think, assuming I remember it rightbr. "Surveys demonstrate"; meaning, somebody said in a comment section, I think, assuming I remember it rightbr. etc

Re:Yeah, right

[gzuckier]

Third, you can spend hours fact checking the claim in order to eventually, finally, reassure yourself that yes, they are lying sacks of shit and no part of what they said was representative of the truth.

How often do you actually take the third option? How often can you, really? That's like asking someone how many EULAs they read.

All the time, actually.

Before the internet was so comprehensive, not very much, I'll admit. But now I can search for information on just about anything, and within a minute (not "hours"), I can be reading professional journal articles on the topic.

If I see a post I know is right (or at least includes a bunch of stuff I know is right already), I generally skim it or pass by. If I see a post that I know is wrong, I may reply with what I know, or I may just ignore it depending on how much I care.

But if I see a post making assertions that seem more speculative or which make strong claims that contradict what I thought I knew, I want to know the truth. So, I often go a-searching. Generally within a couple minutes, I can either locate a reputable source that seems to verify it, or a reputable source that shows the poster was an idiot -- or, I often find both the spurious claims the poster was making along with someone else who has better credentials or better data debunking it.

That's a primary way I learn new stuff in the internet age. You should try it sometime. Sure, I don't fact-check comments on things I don't care about at all, because I don't often read comments or stories I don't care about (or only briefly skim comments looking for anything interesting).

Anyhow, that's about the main reason I read comments -- I want someone to tell me something new. And if it seems legitimately new, I generally want to know more about it -- not just accept it as truth and go around telling people, "Yeah, I heard a guy on the internet talking about X, and you won't believe what he said! Let me tell you about it..."

That's useless and a waste of everyone's time. My default assumption is skepticism. If you're going to believe any useless crap on the internet without checking it yourself, then I have a bridge to sell you. What I often like about discussion here on Slashdot is that people don't have a lot of patience for that kind of nonsense. Yes, it gets modded up sometimes, but then someone else frequently comes along who does know something and can provide better citations. It's not a perfect system, but it works better than most.

Absolutely. works well with chrome browser, where you just highlight what the commenter says and hit "search google for" whatever the guy was claiming. Honest people do it with claims with which they agree as well as with which they disagree. Either way, as you say, you learn something you didn't know. Most people don't; they just vaguely remember the ones they like and next month say something like "I saw a report last month that said" and get whatever it was 50% wrong, and the next guy reads it and carries on the chain. Completely unjustifiable in the era of the Internet and the Web and Google.

Re:Yeah, right

[gzuckier]

I'm an expert commentator!! No, I'm not necessarily an expert on any particular subject; I'm simply an expert at commenting. This comment should be modded "expert". :)

Not me, I'm just a regular common tater.
Oh come on! you know damn well if I didn't say it somebody else would. And probably will anyway.

Re:Yeah, right

[gzuckier]

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.

And yet, it seems like at least 80% of the population are subaverage.
all humor aside, what this has taught me over the years is that our illusions regarding average are much higher than reality.

Re:Yeah, right

[gzuckier]

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.

And of course, the related:
"I'm not a ...... (usually climatologist) but I am an ........ (often engineer, or physicist, or scientist) and ....."
and the corollary "Linus pauling says..."

Re:Yeah, right

[lsatenstein]

I do quite a bit of posting, sometimes I am exhibiting stupidity, other times I have appropriate comments. By the way, I worked in senior positions in IT for 55 years, was active until a year ago, and now enjoy responding to slashdot comments. I do so because I have the time to think out a response, because many of my friends have died, I am not yet ready to spend my morning in the coffee shops talking to the other retirees about solving the worlds problems. I am 74, and I have opinions that are valid, based on my experience.

Many responders within slashdot are in their 20s and are still mentally immature in their responses. Others show and enjoyable to read response to some articles. I just follow the example of life "small vocabularies equals small minds"

Re:Yeah, right

[smallfries]

I can't be bothered to check something that I vaguely remember, but luckily there are many people with the personality type to do this, reading this very thread. Woot.

Doesn't #2 impose a greater cognitive load than #3? Which of course would make it more tiring to maintain in the long run.

Re:Yeah, right

[Icyfire0573]

I really like this idea. It is something I currently do not do myself but when I do pass around information information I is less:

"Yeah, I heard a guy on the internet talking about X, and you won't believe what he said! Let me tell you about it..."

And more, I read this, I didn't check to see if it is right, but,
or
I don't know if I believe this, but I read X by some guy.

Re:Yeah, right

[radl33t]

My only necessity is to vigilantly maintain and uphold the way that I think and understand the world. Compromising that to lessen my cognitive load or evaluate something based on vague recollection are unacceptable compromises that will deteriorate who I am.An informed comment will take me either 30 seconds or a long time due to fact checking. More often than not my long form comments are not submitted as I am mostly satisfied with my personal due diligence on the issue and not the futility of the present argument.

Re:Yeah, right

[smallfries]

Well in that case I guess I must play role of appropriate personality type X to go and find the resource. As it turns out my vague recollection was exactly wrong, it is not choosing beliefs that imposes a cognitive load. Processing other people's beliefs imposes cognitive load (I would speculate this would be some kind of role-playing operation happening at a low (automatic) level).

So, in the context of online discussions it would work out the other way: that recognising that other people have differing beliefs would impose a greater cognitive load. Anyway, the experiment design that they used is quite cool so if it interests you the article is at this location.

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[lesincompetent]

"Many readers [...] assume commenters 'know something about the subject, because otherwise they wouldn't be commenting on it"
Thus my nickname.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[loufoque]

It means you don't know that in French, nouns in the plural form usually take an 's' at the end, same as in English?

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[lesincompetent]

QED, bitch! ;D

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[Smallpond]

It means that you don't know that Les is a common English name.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[BarbaraHudson]

Les Bougon. No 's'. Awesome totally politically incorrect comedy with lots of social commentary (that was pilloried at the time by the intelligentsia as demeaning to certain members of society) and a surprise ending to the series. What other show would dare have a scruffy little dog named "Ben Laden" that eats on the table and drinks beer?

Did they miss

[invictusvoyd]

she and her co-authors Aneta K. Molenda and Charlotte R. Cramer analyzed comments from three sources (The New York Times, the Discover magazine science blog and a Facebook group for science buffs)

slashdot ? the mother of all commenting kungfu

bogus story

[swell]

Trust me. I'm just like you and I'm an expert. You can believe my comments when I tell you that this story is bogus. You and I, we're like peas in a pod and we know when a slashdot story is misleading. Less savvy readers believe stories like this but not us. NYT, WSU, what do they know? As long as we stick together we will know the truth. Right on bro!

Re:bogus story

[gzuckier]

Trust me. I'm just like you and I'm an expert. You can believe my comments when I tell you that this story is bogus. You and I, we're like peas in a pod and we know when a slashdot story is misleading. Less savvy readers believe stories like this but not us. NYT, WSU, what do they know? As long as we stick together we will know the truth. Right on bro!

"I come before you to stand behind you to tell you something I know nothing about."

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 .

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but in reality, the danger of people giving advice that actually matters when they are not qualified to do so and other people are likely to be harmed as a result is exactly why professions such as law, accountancy, engineering and medical practice are regulated by law in many places, and claiming to be qualified in these professions when you are not is then against the law.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[CrimsonAvenger]

claiming to be qualified in these professions when you are not is then against the law.

First Amendment.

You can claim anything you want with no trouble.

You can even take money for it, if you can find someone to pay you.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[mi]

claiming to be qualified in these professions when you are not is then against the law

You are making an argument against the First Amendment. May be, you have a point. Indeed, many countries live without such law and/or do not consider the freedom of speech to be particularly sacred. But it is the law of the land here and is, generally, cherished by most Americans.

Not because we want to hear more liars, but because we are afraid, the government's regulation required to keep them at bay is worse than the original problem itself. Examples of China, Iran, and Russia give solid substantiation to this fear.

The "broadcast licenses", "fairness doctrines", and other "common sense" measures are encroachments on that freedom and should be exposed, mocked, and rejected as such. You may call them "pragmatic", I choose to call them "unprincipled". And — because the violated principle happens to be a law — illegal.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You are making an argument against the First Amendment.

Yes, I am, because I find the idea that absolute freedom of speech does or should trump all other rights, freedoms and responsibilities to be dangerous, both in principle and in practice.

It is also contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the law just about everywhere. There is literally no country on the planet -- including the United States of America -- where you can say whatever you want, regardless of the truth of it or the damage it may cause, and be immune to any consequences in law. Life just doesn't work that way, because in reality words are very powerful things, and any such law would therefore be futile.

It is important to protect speech under some circumstances. For example, it is necessary to the successful operation of any civilised society that anyone is free to express their honestly held belief on a matter of political policy, no matter how unpopular it may be, without fear of legal sanction. Indeed, one of the very few situations here in the UK where essentially absolute freedom of speech does apply is when Members of Parliament say something in the House.

However, that example is also a good demonstration of the danger of placing freedom of speech above other laws. We have an election coming up, and we've recently seen some very dubious allegations made against political figures from rival parties under cover of parliamentary privilege. Naturally, those allegations go straight into the headlines regardless of any truth or otherwise they may have, potentially affecting how people will vote at the election. The most the alleged tax dodgers can personally do in return is challenge politicians to repeat their claims outside of Parliament, where they would be subject to the same defamation laws as anyone else, but funnily enough you don't see a lot of headlines when a politician does not stand by their earlier claims in that way.

In any case, protecting intentional falsehoods is a very dubious path to follow. Why should deliberately misleading someone and consequently causing them harm not be subject to penalty and compensation in law like any other type of deliberate harm? What moral, ethical or other practical justification can there be for protecting someone who, for example, claims to be a doctor and writes a trusting patient a false prescription for a drug that then kills them?

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[Bing Tsher E]

Yes, I am, because I find the idea that absolute freedom of speech does or should trump all other rights, freedoms and responsibilities to be dangerous, both in principle and in practice.

All of life is dangerous. What are these 'other rights' that are at risk. We need to discuss this further, obviously. Ideally without all the expensive words cluttering things up. Give an example of what you mean.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Are you suggesting that if you walked into a public place and seriously told a security guard that you were carrying a bomb and intended to blow it up, nothing would happen?

Personally, I don't think that's a very good idea. The consequences of just making that claim would cause significant harm to a lot of people, and I have no problem with the law prohibiting it.

(Of course you can take this idea too far, as we've seen in the UK in recent years when absurd legal cases have been brought against people who made "threats" that obviously weren't intended seriously. And then you get the argument about what "obvious" means and how security people can't have any sense of humour or indeed any other form of common sense in these matters. But this isn't the kind of grey area situation I'm talking about here.)

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[swillden]

You can claim anything you want with no trouble.

Yes, you can, at the bar or wherever.

If you're claiming to be a doctor and offering medical services, however, that is a crime. Same for legal services, professional engineering services, etc.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Give an example of what you mean.

You maliciously accuse someone of a serious crime, say rape or child abuse, that they did not commit. They are found not guilty in court, yet still suffer irreparable damage to their personal relationships and professional career as a result of the allegations and the costs and distress caused by the resulting proceedings.

I don't think your freedom to tell lies about someone else and consequently destroy their life outweighs their right not to be defamed.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[s.petry]

No! Speech is not dangerous. The only exception we could possibly argue is yelling "FIRE! Save yourself!" in a crowded theater. That is not dangerous in reality because of the words, it is dangerous because the cramped space and resulting stampede. Yell "FIRE! Save Yourself!" in an open field and people will wonder how mentally handicapped you really are. It is perfectly legal to look like an idiot.

You do not seem to have basic grasp of what science is, let alone politics or subjects that are purely opinion based on world view. Science, at least the majority, is an opinion based on facts. The more facts, the better the opinion. Those opinions change over time, sometimes using the same exact facts. Take the Expanding Quantum Vacuum theory as an example, a theory which runs contrary to the more prevalent Big Bang.

You also completely ignore the possibility that a Government may provide false information for various reasons. Who watches the watchers? Oh, nobody because we can't even discuss unapproved opinion right? Only a government can be qualified to discuss government things in your view?

I have said this before and I'll say it again.

You can not prevent people from saying things you don't like, and the only way to learn to defend against bad arguments is to hear the bad arguments. You can only protect your ability to hear the arguments and defend your own opinion. If you are mute, that protection is gone.

Thank goodness for that as well, because if contrary opinions were silent the world would still be flat and lightning would come from some angry guy living in the sky.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[s.petry]

Down modding is not true censoring. People are free to browse at (-1) and I normally do, especially when I have mod points.

Sure, sock puppetry and other trickery can be used to quiet certain people and opinions, but that is not the same thing as silencing them.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[mi]

You are making an argument against the First Amendment.

Yes, I am

Go ahead, then, you know the process.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[Crash24]

There are already laws governing harassment.

Unless you're referring to garish shirts worn by scientists or - the horror - people who hold politically correct views, or may even disagree with you.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

As I don't live in the US, the obsession with the First Amendment in certain parts of the US population isn't really my problem, nor that of anyone else where I live.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[mi]

If you're claiming to be a doctor [...], however, that is a crime.

Yes, and our point is, any law prohibiting such claims is contrary to the First Amendment.

Now, actually offering medical services — there things are less obvious, I'll give you that...

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[s.petry]

Your first question is just idiocy, if you really care go read about censorship and it's dangers. Yelling "I KILL YOU" does not kill you, and yelling "EVERYONE KILL THAT GUY" does not make everyone kill that guy. Any claim that it does cause harm ignores facts. Maybe in your fantasy world magic words do exist, but to the rest of society we know better.

To your second part I gave a great example and you ignored it. You also can't seem to grasp the difference between facts and not facts, such as theory and opinion. Since you can't seem to grasp those differences everything else you state is useless recap of what you already said that I objected to.

I'm smelling a troll at this point.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[mi]

If speech is not dangerous, then why is it so important to you that freedom of speech be protected?

Speech is dangerous to the would-be tyrants, who want it regulated. It is not dangerous to the actual society of free citizens.

"Words," — Stalin, said — "are more dangerous than bullets, so why should we not control words?"

You are in good company.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[mi]

Ah, well, then continue to censor yourself and others in whatever hole it is you are residing.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Speech is dangerous to the would-be tyrants, who want it regulated. It is not dangerous to the actual society of free citizens.

You did actually read the article, right? The entire point here is that misleading speech can in practice convey unwarranted credibility and thus cause harm to those who wrongly believe what is said.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[swillden]

The part of my comment you elided was "and offering medical services", which completely changed the meaning of the quote. Are you aiming for a career in journalism?

To be clear, it is not illegal to claim to be a doctor in contexts that don't involve offering medical advice/service, so there is no conflict with the first amendment.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[CrimsonAvenger]

because I find the idea that absolute freedom of speech does or should trump all other rights

I find myself curious as to just how "absolute freedom of speech" could possibly trump any other right, much less all of them....

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[s.petry]

So you are not afraid to make up your own "facts"? I never called names, I said your argument was idiocy. Your statement was both irrational and illogical, and I demonstrated the point very clearly. You can change your argument as you wish from, but turning it into a "you called me names" statement is incorrect. Factually incorrect!.

So we are off to a great start with my last thought, but lets see..

What you are saying in very simple terms is that opinions and theories _YOU_ like should be treated as if they were facts. Any other theories, even those that use the same base facts for their conclusions are inferior to yours and must be censored.

That is the rational you have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread. _YOU_ get to be the arbiter of "good" versus "bad" theories and opinions, or perhaps some Government agency that you trust to get your opinion from.

I further gave examples of where that has gone wrong in the past, and you simply ignored those like you did my demonstration that words are not dangerous. So you ignore facts you don't like, make up your own when you want, can't seem to differentiate between facts and non-facts, and you approve of censorship. Wow, it all becomes very clear.

I can't fix your delusion, but perhaps you can. Show me one period of censorship in history that has benefited society as a whole. Just one fact to back your opinion and we can discuss this further.

Repeating the same baseless opinion and making up stories will simply confirm my previous suspicion that you are just a trolling. Sure, you are free to keep repeating it but it won't magically become factual. I won't respond to trolling either.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[s.petry]

That has nothing to do with the first amendment, that has to do with the other constitutional abuses. At least in the US.

The theory of our amendments is such that if a person is accused of a crime there should be no journalism which presents an opinion of guilt until the Jury has done it's job. If the Jury returns a guilty verdict Journalists can do what they wish. That is the theory at any rate, but like our First amendment the presumption of innocence is something from the past.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[pipingguy]

Poe's Law!

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Same thing with libel and slander - it is the fraud that is being punished, not the speech.

That may be true as a technicality, depending on how your local laws are written, but what difference does it make in practice? Either you are free to say something defamatory about someone else or you are not. If you will be punished for saying something fraudulent, you are still not free to say that thing without legal consequence.

That is why there is more freedom for people in the United States than other countries like France or Germany.

An interesting example. In Europe, we tend to favour individual privacy over free speech to a greater degree than the US does, perhaps because in Europe -- and particularly in countries such as those you mentioned -- we still have living memory of what can happen if privacy is not sufficiently protected.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The theory of our amendments is such that if a person is accused of a crime there should be no journalism which presents an opinion of guilt until the Jury has done it's job.

That seems a reasonable principle, which is probably in the interests of justice. But how is it not a restriction on free speech? Is this not just another form of censorship? I haven't brought this situation up myself, but if I'd been pushed for more examples of free speech vs. privacy issues and why I believe privacy should be given more weight in our modern, highly connected world, this would have been one of the first examples I would have given.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[gzuckier]

claiming to be qualified in these professions when you are not is then against the law.

First Amendment.

You can claim anything you want with no trouble.

You can even take money for it, if you can find someone to pay you.

claiming to be qualified in these professions when you are not is then against the law.

First Amendment.

You can claim anything you want with no trouble.

You can even take money for it, if you can find someone to pay you.

And you can be sued for it with no trouble. And you have to pay your legal fees, even if you "win"
In all states the unauthorized practice of medicine is a serious criminal offense and makes you liable for big civil liability. The unauthorized practice of medicine occurs whenever someone gives medical advice or treatment without a professional license. It is not restricted to hanging up a shingle and calling yourself doctor. Just giving specific medical advice has been considered to be unauthorized practice of medicine when the advice is specific to a particular person. Thus, you can safely write an article that says that beating yourself on the head with a hammer is the best thing when you get a common cold, but if you answer somebody's comment about his/her cold by suggesting they beat themselves on the head with a hammer and they do, you could find yourself in hot water. Which would have been a better remedy.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[gzuckier]

No! Speech is not dangerous. The only exception we could possibly argue is yelling "FIRE! Save yourself!" in a crowded theater. That is not dangerous in reality because of the words, it is dangerous because the cramped space and resulting stampede. Yell "FIRE! Save Yourself!" in an open field and people will wonder how mentally handicapped you really are. It is perfectly legal to look like an idiot.

You do not seem to have basic grasp of what science is, let alone politics or subjects that are purely opinion based on world view. Science, at least the majority, is an opinion based on facts. The more facts, the better the opinion. Those opinions change over time, sometimes using the same exact facts. Take the Expanding Quantum Vacuum theory as an example, a theory which runs contrary to the more prevalent Big Bang.

You also completely ignore the possibility that a Government may provide false information for various reasons. Who watches the watchers? Oh, nobody because we can't even discuss unapproved opinion right? Only a government can be qualified to discuss government things in your view?

I have said this before and I'll say it again.

You can not prevent people from saying things you don't like, and the only way to learn to defend against bad arguments is to hear the bad arguments. You can only protect your ability to hear the arguments and defend your own opinion. If you are mute, that protection is gone.

Thank goodness for that as well, because if contrary opinions were silent the world would still be flat and lightning would come from some angry guy living in the sky.

There are all kinds of speech which is not legally protected. "Give me your money or I will kill you", for example. "Hey everybody, let's go beat up a Mexican" for another. In Europe, their somewhat recent experience has led them to extend the latter to "Hey everybody, the ....... are the enemies of the rest of humanity". In the US we haven't decided to go that far yet.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[gzuckier]

Your first question is just idiocy, if you really care go read about censorship and it's dangers. Yelling "I KILL YOU" does not kill you, and yelling "EVERYONE KILL THAT GUY" does not make everyone kill that guy. Any claim that it does cause harm ignores facts. Maybe in your fantasy world magic words do exist, but to the rest of society we know better.

To your second part I gave a great example and you ignored it. You also can't seem to grasp the difference between facts and not facts, such as theory and opinion. Since you can't seem to grasp those differences everything else you state is useless recap of what you already said that I objected to.

I'm smelling a troll at this point.

Ah, the theory that in the 30s, the majority of normal German citizens just all spontaneously decided to up and massacre Jews, Gypsies, gays, anybody else..... It wasn't the speech at all.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[s.petry]

But how is it not a restriction on free speech?

I can only point you to the history of Ethics in Journalism. In simplicity, Journalists should police themselves in order to preserve Constitutional rights for the Public. The "print everything to make lots of cash" ethics is a relatively new phenomenon. You can read President Kennedy's "Zeitgeist" speech if you have doubts.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Here in the UK, our journalism professional doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in its ability to police itself. As you may be aware, we just had a long and very public judge-led enquiry into press behaviour, including some of the outright criminal actions that some parts of the media engaged in to get their stories. At least one newspaper collapsed as a result, and several industry heavyweights are doing jail time. So I'm not sure appealing to journalistic ethics over the law of the land is any better as a strategy for promoting the responsible use of protected speech.

Re:Clearly, we must regulate comments!

[s.petry]

Well, to be honest the last 40 years of US Journalism has been no better than the UK. That said, "The Press" is the only job that has an exclusive mention in the US Constitution. Journalism being bought out and monopolized has been our downfall.

What you neglect in your last sentence is that Journalism is codified in the US Constitution, which is highest Law in the land. (uncorrupted of course).

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.

Breathtaking

[nospam007]

'DrPhil' as handle more 'influential than 'BigDickForHire' ?

Who would have thought.

Re:Why are we getting this garbage again?

[nospam007]

"Why are we getting this bullshit repeated again from six months or so ago?"

This time it's posted by somebody with a more influential nick.

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?

Re:Don't add Internet to everything.

[JaredOfEuropa]

That's just it. I'm not surprised that opinions and discussions on the Internet are of poor quality. What surprised me at some point is that the quality of those in the press and in politics aren't *that* much better if you look a little closer.

Re:Don't add Internet to everything.

[AthanasiusKircher]

Just talk to people and you will se the same thing. Be it in a meeting, in a pub or wherever.

That's somewhat true. Although, I know I "cheated" here by reading TFA, but the summary is actually quite bad in this case. For example, the first half of TFA talks a lot about sexism issues in commenting and other things.

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

Well, as TFA points out, one thing that is different about the internet is that the more disconnected (and often anonymous) nature of internet commenting tends to lead people to have fewer inhibitions when commenting -- probably more so than even in a pub (to take your example) for many people.

It's not exactly a new observation, but it is something that potentially makes this interaction a little different. If people assume that commenters are authoritative and "like them" on the internet, then jerks and trolls who post nasty things -- like, say, racist comments on a story -- might gain a wider audience, who then feel justified in their own latent racism.

We can see these dynamics in action, for example in scandals in the past few years where the news has drawn attention to huge numbers of racist comments or tweets that might follow a somewhat inocuous event. (I recall a Hispanic kid singing the national anthem dressed in traditional Mexican clothing at a major national sports event bringing out a flurry of racist comments, for example -- even though the kid was born in the U.S., and I believe his father was in the U.S. military or a veteran or something.)

As I said, TFA focuses on sexism a bit rather than racism, but it's a similar issue. We all know that people are more likely to be jerks on the internet, particularly if they think they are relatively anonymous. However, if other people still read these jerks' comments as authoritative and "like them," it may reinforce opinions and ideas that are actually less mainstream or which would be kept out of normal "civil" discourse.

On the other hand, one might argue that such revelations also often show opinions that are "not poticially correct" but people nevertheless hold -- so such extreme comments may also show a little more about what some people "really think" but normally wouldn't say. Whether or not that balances the trolls and flamers is another question -- but the point is that the internet does actually change these interactions in interesting ways, and TFA talks about some of them.

I'm not a doctor ...

[khasim]

And it can be hilarious.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/56279/who-originally-said-im-not-doctor-i-play-one-tv

Which is also the reason why "dentists" in advertisements wear stethoscopes.

Re:I'm not a doctor ...

[retroworks]

I recall it as either Robert Young (Marcus Welby) or Parnell Roberts (Trapper John MD). But the only expertise I can find on the subject are laypeople commenting their recollections.

censorship and anonymity

[Iamthecheese]

People being influenced by comments is not a problem. And it certainly isn't a problem best solved by attacking anonymity. The more anonymous comments are, the more they'll be judged by the merits of the arguments of which they consist. The article seems to be calling for every comment section to be turned into a walled garden.

Re:censorship and anonymity

[Opportunist]

Sorry, but wrong. Any comment will not be judged by the merits of the arguments but by the prevailing groupthink in the audience. If you need any proof of this, go to a conservative discussion board and present your arguments for evolution. Or try a liberal discussion board and argue the qualities of a non-flat tax system.

Your credibility in a group is always determined by how much your arguments match what the group considers "the truth". The closer you are to that "truth", the more credible you are because you reinforce what they want to believe.

Re:censorship and anonymity

[radl33t]

Where is the group think when there is no community? For example accessible comment systems on news sites (e.g. disqus)?

Is it established by the article? The first post?

Re:censorship and anonymity

[Opportunist]

You want to tell me that news sites would not attract a rather homogeneous group of people with similar views? Seriously?

I guess you can count the Michael Moore fans that frequent conservative news outlets AND be masochistic enough to post their actual opinion on them on one hand.

Re:censorship and anonymity

[radl33t]

I don't want to tell you anything. I asked a question. Your incredulity surprises me. You have heard of social media and link aggregation right? My familiarity with local print and broadcast media tells me that it is possible to cater to large, nonhomogenous groups of people.

I follow stories to many sites, whose political allegiance is unknown to me. If my participation is essentially via aggregators and social medias and these sites I visit have disqus, for example, I can comment freely without any particular regard to where I am. My participation isn't tied to that site and nothing distinguishes me from any group that may or may not exist. Comments at this site are open to random people and the sites themselves may be randomly pushed via some unsophisticated promotion/aggregation process.

So unless you have some evidence that my behavior is uncommon I think my question has merit. I also think you are guilty of vast over simplification.

Re:Why are we getting this garbage again?

[mrbester]

Nicks mean nothing. It's the UID that counts.

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:What did they actually learn?

[Karmashock]

Too true. My father for example despises the paper yet he subscribes to it because he comes from a generation where if you didn't read the NYTs you'd miss something. He's literally afraid not to read the fucking thing because despite the fact that he reads blogs, internet news sources, etc he still doesn't quite trust it. And so he subscribes.

Drink

[occasional_dabbler]

The number and length of my comments increase and their quality decreases in proportion to how much I've drunk. This is a rare, sober comment...

Plus, obligatory XKCD

The default state: Skeptical

[kuzb]

I assume everyone talking has no fucking clue what they're talking about until they prove otherwise.

In all my many years on the internet I've come to a single conclusion: most people venture so far out of their own domains of expertise that it's saddening. You see it constantly. Bring up marijuana and suddenly everyone is a medical expert. Bring up PC repair/modification and suddenly everyone is an Engineer.

This may just be my own unqualified opinion on the subject but it seems like nothing turns people in to a pack of complete idiots faster than anonymity.

Re:The default state: Skeptical

[Anonymous Coward]

In all my many years on the internet I've come to a single conclusion: most people venture so far out of their own domains of expertise that it's saddening. You see it constantly. Bring up marijuana and suddenly everyone is a medical expert. Bring up PC repair/modification and suddenly everyone is an Engineer.

Bring up SystemD and suddenly everyone is a Senior Systems Architect with decades of experience on UNIX.

Re:The default state: Skeptical

[ColdWetDog]

This may just be my own unqualified opinion on the subject but it seems like nothing turns people in to a pack of complete idiots faster than anonymity.

Alcohol and firearms work better for that, but you do have to be in meatspace.

Re:The default state: Skeptical

[AthanasiusKircher]

This may just be my own unqualified opinion on the subject but it seems like nothing turns people in to a pack of complete idiots faster than anonymity.

Agreed -- which is the primary case for pseudonymity.

I agree that there is plenty of value in real names on the internet when someone is actually going to offer something in their official professional capacity or area of expertise. When some dude starts spouting medical advice, and you can found out that he's using his real name AND is a doctor, maybe that can change your judgment.

But maybe that doctor also wants to offer other opinions on topics related to medical science, but maybe the issues are more controversial or perhaps he wants to say some things that he's not ready to stake his reputation on.

If he posts anonymously, you can't judge his opinion better than any other wacko on the internet.

But if he has a durable pseudonym, people can go back and look at previous posts. If he has a record of saying reliable things about medical topics, maybe he does know something.

Or, if he wants to go posting on a chef site, he can adopt a different pseudonym, and again people can judge his reputation based on previous contributions. Regardless of whether he has "credentials," he can develop an online reputation for saying things that other actual experts agree with.

We do this all the time in real life -- we speak differently to the boss compared to our coworkers, to the old ladies at church compared to the guys at the bar, to our kids compared to a partner in the bedroom. If all of those are connected and mushed together into one "real-life" identity, it makes it nearly impossible to have the multitude of different types of interactions we do in the real world. This is one of the major problems with social networks like Facebook, which try to insist that you be a real person and that you are the same person to all people. (Zuckerberg is on record as saying that people who want to have different online identities must be inherently dishonest.)

But that's just not like things are in the real world. In the real world, you build up your reputation at the bar based on previous behavior, and a pseudonym online can approximate something like that.

Re:The default state: Skeptical

[Bite The Pillow]

That's the whole point - you have your own unqualified opinion, and everyone else (the statistical "everyone") operates using the opposite as being an unstated assumption.

When you say "everyone is a medical expert", I understand you to mean that people assert the things they understand and hold true, regardless of whether it has any basis or has been debunked. And if I look at SystemD comments, as in a sibling post, it's a bunch of sound bites that are really just fronts for the opinion "I disagree".

And, of course, it all boils down to a person's feeling that what they believe is true, is true. Men in this study do not acknowledge a bias and women do, men believe that gender role division is a natural outcome and women do not. And, so many people here can't believe that the default state is something other than scepticism - because that's how their understanding of the world works.

And changing these understandings and behaviors is like farting in a hurricane.

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".

Re:Often the comments *are* better

[c0d3g33k]

The comments in the "Nim Programming Language Gaining Traction" submission on the front page are pretty awful at the moment. Let's hope you are right and the quality of subsequent comments increases dramatically. I was hoping for better ...

Re:Often the comments *are* better

[s.petry]

No, there is no problem except in your head. What is the default browse number for comments? Newcomers are not inundated with the bad comments, they are shown the highest rated first post by time as a default. Below that sure, there may be some trolling rant about an ethnic or religious group, but people should already have a picture by the time they get that far.

Re:Often the comments *are* better

[kencurry]

The comments say a lot about the site readership. Slashdot trends better on average, I think a reflection of that fact that many people on here have taken time to educate themselves about life in general, beyond just their careers. OTOH, I am always appalled at WSJ on how badly thought out the comments tend to be.

The other phenomenon I see is that for enthusiast sites for autos, watches, etc., the comments tend to all come from the same few people with thousands of posts.

Re:Often the comments *are* better

[solios]

Slashdot's comments are upvoted/downvoted in a more granular fashion than any other site out there and comment display can be skewed by user preferences - I penalize "funny" posts and really wish I could do the same on Reddit. The best the rest of the internet has managed to implement is a Nero-style upvote/downvote system, which puts the same weight on puns and one-liners as it does on trolls and insightful responses.

Commenting in general is ripe for disruption - if Disqus upgraded from upvote/downvote to something along the lines of the system Slashdot has had since the 90s it would change the Comments section overnight.

Re:Often the comments *are* better

[c0d3g33k]

[...] I penalize "funny" posts and really wish I could do the same on Reddit.

That's certainly your prerogative, but I have to wonder why? Do you have something against humor? Must every discussion be nothing but dead serious utterances of grave import? Some "funny" comments are certainly childish or base, but quite a lot of them are quite clever and they add a little fun to the atmosphere of the conversation(s).

Re:Often the comments *are* better

[solios]

Humor is pretty subjective - I set "funny" at a -1 and found that it improved the quality of the comments I was reading enormously. Funny posts are still in the mix, just not at the default intensity. This was a lot more of an issue a decade or so back, when the Slashdot Effect was a real threat to websites and the site was practically my home page. These days the sort of shoot-from-the-hip snark that swamped the comments section "above the fold" has migrated over to Reddit, where, depending on the subreddit and subject, I may have to hit the Page Down key up to half a dozen times to get past the jokes, one-liners, and associated snark - all upvoted far past the point where my downvote would have any meaningful impact. While that's where the fun is for a lot of people, I really like being able to de-prioritize that sort of commentary or toss it out entirely - the fact that Slashdot allows for a degree of user-controlled comment display means we're not as subject to groupthink... and I'm far more likely to use my modpoints to upvote deserving comments than I am to spitefully downvote "funny" posts that don't mesh with my sense of humor.

Re:Why are we getting this garbage again?

[rmdingler]

How do you know the story didn't originate here and returns to the past article in a causal loop?

Trust me. I work for the Temporal Bureau.

The search for positive reinforcement

[petes_PoV]

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.

I believe that people are more inclined to give credibility to comments that they already have some sympathy with - rather than ones which take an opposing view.

I've never seen any follow-up comments, anywhere, that say "yes, you're right. I used to think differently, but your arguments have persuaded me I was wrong". At best you get other like-minded people agreeing with you and at worst you get those who disagree making an extreme, offensive, insulting or threatening retorts.

It also seems likely that the "less internet-savvy" are soon cured of that particular shortcoming and soon join in the fray. While most will be well-balanced individuals, a few will go completely over the top - some permanently as they then get the attention (and pity) they crave, but most will quickly have an "OMG, what am I doing" moment and become ashamed of their excessive behaviour.

Re:The search for positive reinforcement

[DamonHD]

Confirmation bias is strong even when people try to avoid it, but I have once or twice even here on /. said words to the effect "thank you for that explanation I didn't have a clue" and "yes, I take your point".

It can happen, just not often, and changing an opinion is often a slow and gradual (and sometimes embarrassing) process, unlikely to be visible in the course of a single response.

Rgds

Damon

Re:The search for positive reinforcement

[EdwardFurlong]

I tell my SO all the time DO NOT argue with people on the Internet. Even if the basis of their reasoning is a fallacy, that is not going to change their underlying opinion of the subject.

Most of what people say in the real world is a bunch of crap. Look things up for yourself . Where I used to work people would have hours long debates about things. But nobody would ever actually look anything up. I have no idea why the first reaction in many people is to just believe something. Even if they are getting their information from TV news, every other broadcast has a correction. Twerking caught on fire, baby grabbed by falcon, kids smoking bedbugs.

I was banned from a forum, pretty much because it was mostly xian republicans. Stray from those two views and you are an idiot. Everything that supports those two, great.

Hopefully online, people making stupid comments will be corrected. But there is always the people who can point to studies it is better to not vaccinate, so it is pointless to argue with them.

Re:That Explains Why Online News Is Removing Comme

[petes_PoV]

many news organizations are removing the ability to comment

The difficulty there is that it also reduces the engagement with the readers and thus the number of times they will return to the page and therefore see the advertisements. There do appear to be many (previously respectable) newspaper websites that publish articles that are only there as click-bait.

The the UK The Guardian (a once respectable, semi-liberal, print publication) has taken that route to publishing inflammatory, poorly written and factually incorrect op-ed / opinion pieces on its website who's only value seems to be to draw comments and provoke arguments.

Re:translation: whites reject multiculturalism onl

[leftistconservative]

please tell me why you think I am "trolling".

Re:translation: whites reject multiculturalism onl

[leftistconservative]

please tell me why I'm an asshole

Yes, true.

[Sqreater]

But this applies to any means of comment, not just the internet, and always has. Letters to the editor did the same thing. It also depends on how well a thing is expressed and written.

Re:translation: whites reject multiculturalism onl

[Lumpy]

Dude, Blacks are just as racist as whites. Same as latinos and asians, etc... Every single "race" (we are all humans you dorks) has buttloads of racism in it. In fact ask very very dark black men and women how racist light colored blacks are against them. Or ask Sunni's how racist Shittites are agaisnt them...

Humanity is just 60% assholes and 40% normal people. And for some reason we are built to love and embrace hatred of those that are not exactly like us.

Re:translation: whites reject multiculturalism onl

[leftistconservative]

why on earth are you telling me this??!! Can you read what I wrote? If so, you did not understand? Why do I feel like I am addressing a class of first graders every time I reply to a comment online?

Re: Another pro-vaccination article

[Applehu Akbar]

No, it's a disguised pro-space article. Muahahahahaha!

Poe's Law at Work

[Kunedog]

I can only be about 80% sure that you're fucking with us.

Re: My two cents

[Applehu Akbar]

Are you from the island of truth-telling commenters, or from the island of lying commenters?

Both First and Second...

[mi]

the First Ammendment, like the Second Ammendment, is not an absolute

Heh-heh... Yes, finally, the First Amendment is compared with the Second. Indeed, we must introduce the following pragmatic and common sense measures and clarifications:

• The First Amendment only covers the right to petition the government
• For a petition to be covered, it may only be for redress of grievances;
• A petitioner must register with the government, undergo a background check, and have a valid petitioner license at the time of petitioning (which, of course, turns it from a right into a privilege, but never mind that).
• The right may be stripped from convicted (or even merely suspected) criminals.
• Additional restrictions — such as mandatory waiting period — can be added by the States to any would-be petitioner.
• Only the technologies available at the time the Amendment became law can be used — radio, TV, and the Internet are decidedly not covered.

Did I miss anything?

Re:Both First and Second...

[russotto]

You missed the memo. Leftists don't believe in free speech any more. The whole "Freeze Peach" thing comes from the left.

Re: Mount Stupid

[Applehu Akbar]

Mount Stupid? I can't keep up with all these new Bitcoin exchanges.

Re:credibility?

[radl33t]

Conversely that may also be a desperate expert's attempt to educate people that should know better!

Case in Point - KOMO's Gamergate Story

[Kunedog]

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.

Yup.

Just last week, KOMO TV in Seattle aired a biased Gamergate story (though, as a sad indication of how low the bar is, it's way less biased than most news media). Three days later, there was a note at the bottom of every story, saying site comments are no more:
http://www.komonews.com/news/l...

Looks like too many gamers were fact-checking their work, and it was too embarassing to let people see that happen.

Re:translation: whites reject multiculturalism onl

[leftistconservative]

I have a BA in English, a license to teach English in Texas, and I am an experienced teacher of English in high school and middle school. I also have a juris doctor degree in law to go with my BS in Computer Science.

Re:That Explains Why Online News Is Removing Comme

[DamonHD]

One of the reasons that I have not run my own forums, even as one of the first people with Internet connectivity in the UK for example, is the horror of dealing with that effect. I sincerely believe most people around me to be decent human beings, with some rougher edges exposed when not talking face to face.

But what is it that happens with discussion threads?

Rgds

Damon

Re:My two cents

[BarbaraHudson]

This comment is a lie.

Re:translation: whites reject multiculturalism onl

[ColdWetDog]

This is abuse. Arguments are down the hall.....

Easy one.

[PopeRatzo]

What Your Online Comments Say About You

They say I should drink more.

Re:translation: whites reject multiculturalism onl

[ColdWetDog]

On a more serious view - your initial argument (that corporations like the NYT who rely on 'big advertisers' have comment sections that reflect some underlying need of those advertisers)- is way too simplistic and over arching. There is likely a grain of truth in it, but as a general rule falls flat.

It isn't trolling and your English is better than most (although a low bar and you didn't help your cause by stating you teach English in Texas - having spent a dozen years of my life there I am not sure that 'English' is even a concept familiar to vast majority of Texans).

Re:That Explains Why Online News Is Removing Comme

[Bing Tsher E]

There's that whole Snowden thing, for instance. The Guardian never should have printed any of it. It's just clickbait.

Re:translation: whites reject multiculturalism onl

[CrimsonAvenger]

How can they increase the supply of labor? Multiculturalism, racial integration, feminism

While I can believer your fourth point, maybe, what do these three things have to do with labor supply?

Why am I the only person in the world saying these things?

Because you're the biggest idiot in the world?

Are you that slow?

[s.petry]

Perhaps you missed the article yesterday where a prominent University proved that the FDA does not do it's job, it works for Agriculture and Pharmaceutical companies. Maybe you missed the fact that the NSA spying on everyone all the time did not catch a single terrorist event in the US, and no mass shooters were caught either (which I guess we could call not sponsored terrorism, and probably should given media's handling). Maybe you missed another prominent University study last year which determined that the US was no longer a democracy but at best and Oligarchy but at worst Fascism.

So the danger you are talking about is a two way street. The FDA approves things that a former advertising VP approves, not something that science approves. Science has no other outlet except for alternative sources. Or maybe you missed the fact that all broadcast media has the same owner, has been proven to lie to the public, and lacks credibility and accountability. Maybe it's hard to see that even Newspapers rely on the same corrupt government agencies for information because if the corrupt source is not used everyone yells "CONSPIRACY!" and nobody actually check facts.

People are fully capable of checking facts all by themselves. If they don't know to go looking, that's a different issue. That is exactly the first amendment here is critical. We can no longer trust our Government agencies, they don't give a fuck about the public they are supposed to look out for. It's been proven again and again. Give people the message and if they want to go looking for facts they can.

Nope, it's not perfect. Some shithead will always be able to post garbage. That is a risk that we have accepted for over 200 years because the trade off is not worth it. That is the only way it can work.

Re:Are you that slow?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Yes, regulatory capture is a Bad Thing. It often happens when you let politicians and the corporate interests that sponsor them dictate the terms of the debate rather than subject matter experts. That makes it an excellent argument for why subject matter experts must be free to say they are properly qualified and politicians must not be free to claim the same level of qualification when they have not earned it.

People are fully capable of checking facts all by themselves.

No, they aren't. That's the point. Some fields are sufficiently complicated that a normal person with no specialist training will not have sufficient skill and expertise to make their own informed judgements and will require expert advice to help them.

This doesn't mean those people are stupid. It doesn't mean they can't understand when the relevant issues are explained to them. But lawyers spend a professional lifetime studying the law, often only a relatively small part of it. Accountants have a full-time job keeping up with the rules and regulations for completing company financial statements and tax returns and so on. Doctors, at least in my country, spend years studying before they can practise professionally at all, and then years more in one of the few industries that still operates something like the old apprentice-journeyman-master model of close personal training, before they reach the point of making completely independent determinations about a patient's condition and the required treatment. No one person can possibly be an expert on all of these fields.

That is a risk that we have accepted for over 200 years because the trade off is not worth it. That is the only way it can work.

The rest of the first world called and asked for their money back.

That's the rest of the first world where special interest groups are way, way less influential than they are in the United States, in case you wondered which one I meant.

Re:Are you that slow?

[s.petry]

It often happens when you let politicians and the corporate interests that sponsor them dictate the terms of the debate rather than subject matter experts

It also happens when attempting to regulate "expert's opinion". That regulation happened during the Dark Ages all the time. Governments and Religions are not run by scientists, they are run by people hoarding power in all of it's various forms. You seem to have a delusion that everyone in Government is altruistic, and I gave you some references so that you can prove it false.

The rest of the first world called and asked for their money back.

Bullshit! I'm not claiming the US is perfect, and surely not claiming that it's populace can't be fooled. We were fooled into a war in Iraq exactly because we lack 1st amendment protection in media. "Freedom of Speech" in the US is broken, and has been completely broken since the FCC ruled monopoly was fine. A ruling that was the result of regulatory capture by the way. Freedom of Speech in the 1970s got us out of Vietnam, and a lack of 1st amendment protection got us into Vietnam.

You are putting the blame in the exact opposite place. Try looking at things with a broad view.

Re:Are you that slow?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You seem to have a delusion that everyone in Government is altruistic

I honestly have no idea where you got that from. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the need to prevent political operatives and corporate PR departments from misleadingly claiming to hold the same peer-approved credentials as real scientists and engineers and doctors is one of the most important reasons I hold the view I do on this subject.

In my country, for example, a drugs company may not lawfully run a TV ad that makes false claims about the effectiveness of its product. In fact, for drugs that require prescription by a qualified doctor, they aren't allowed to advertise them to the general public at all.

If you think this situation is broken and commercial drugs companies should instead be able to advertise to whomever they wish with as misleading a presentation as they wish, presumably this is because we can't trust doctors to give competent professional advice to their patients. I wonder, are you also then in favour of anyone being able to buy any approved drug without a doctor prescribing it based on a proper examination of the patient? For that matter, do you think we should do away with regulatory authorities for things like drugs or food standards altogether, so anyone can sell anything they want based on whatever claims they want to make?

I'm not sure I'd want to live in the world you'd create by undermining any level of professional qualification and expert status. In fact, it seems unlikely that most of us would live for very long, since one of the first things that would happen would be the complete collapse of modern medical practice as things like antibiotics rapidly became useless -- another background trend where the US is currently doing far more harm than most places in the developed world, by the way, but in this case with disturbing long term consequences for the entire human race.

Re:Are you that slow?

[mi]

That makes it an excellent argument for why subject matter experts must be free to say they are properly qualified and politicians must not be free to claim the same level of qualification when they have not earned it.

Wonderful. Unfortunately, requiring certification — as seems to be your proposal — will continue to allow those same politicians to control, just who is free to call themselves a "subject matter expert".

And that's a graver danger, than a few schmucks being misled by a liar.

Re:Are you that slow?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Unfortunately, requiring certification — as seems to be your proposal — will continue to allow those same politicians to control, just who is free to call themselves a "subject matter expert".

Why? The politicians don't award higher degrees and professional qualifications. Generally, within regulated industries, these matters are adjudicated by more experienced peers. In the absence of any absolute truth, I don't know of any better way to run such a system than open peer review.

Sure, in principle you could undermine that system and corrupt the whole thing, but to do that you'd have to undermine the entire community to the extent that established participants almost unanimously agreed with your distorted vision rather than their own previous convictions. If you can do that in a profession important enough to regulate in the first place then you have much, much bigger things to worry about.

No-one exists in a vacuum. At some point you have to trust that someone working in a complicated field who has been recognised as competent by their peers through an open process actually does know what they're doing. The damage from political meddling happens when things like the "by their peers" and "open process" parts get forgotten.

Re:Are you that slow?

[s.petry]

I honestly have no idea where you got that from. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Then who do you propose be the arbiter of who can comment and on what topics? How do you propose that the system does not become corrupt like our allegedly free democracies? If you claim to want control, there must be a controlling entity.

Censorship can not be implemented without corruption, and though repeatedly attempted in history it has _ONLY_ resulted in damage to society. Never has censorship been implemented in a positive way, because it can't be implemented in a positive way.

Re:Are you that slow?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Then who do you propose be the arbiter of who can comment and on what topics?

Are we back to on-line discussions again now? If so, then I haven't proposed any general limitation on who may comment, only that when doing so people shouldn't be able to claim protected qualification or authority that they do not legitimately possess.

To me, that is still a restriction on absolute freedom of speech, but a justifiable one. I see no general need to protect malicious liars from the harmful consequences of their actions under colour of defending free speech. Others here seem to feel this isn't a freedom of speech issue but more a matter of fraud, which to me just seems like quibbling over semantics, but maybe their views and mine aren't so different after all and we just frame the argument in slightly different ways. Perhaps protecting speech yet punishing its consequences is a particularly US way of looking at the issue, like framing the debate in terms of the First Amendment rather than any specific moral, ethical or practical motivation?

How do you propose that the system does not become corrupt like our allegedly free democracies?

The qualifications are awarded by peers through an open, transparent process. As I commented elsewhere, that is the best system I know of for recognising any particular qualification or authority. It's not perfect, but to defeat it you have to corrupt the entire expert body in a field, and if you can do that then the field has no value anyway.

If you claim to want control, there must be a controlling entity.

But that controlling entity doesn't have to be part of the government, any more than we have courts that make determinations of guilt or innocence based on the whim of the Powers That Be rather than people being tried by juries of their peers.

Censorship can not be implemented without corruption, and though repeatedly attempted in history it has _ONLY_ resulted in damage to society. Never has censorship been implemented in a positive way, because it can't be implemented in a positive way.

I'm not so sure. Censorship is a very dangerous thing, and if you said that free speech should only be obstructed when it is necessary to protect other fundamental principles, I'd be the first to agree.

But I don't accept your premise that anything resembling censorship is automatically a bad thing in any context. People lie, with damaging consequence. Even when they aren't lying, you can't force people to tell the whole truth, and a half-truth may be worse than saying nothing at all. You also can't give everyone the power to speak with an equal voice, but otherwise reasonable arguments about defeating negative speech by countering rationally with a more positive alternative tend to assume a right to reply exists, which of course it doesn't in practice. Unless you're going to physically compel everyone to provide such a right of reply, which you can't because it's completely impractical, you have only traded one form of censorship for another anyway.

Consider those things in the context of, say, modern political systems, and you can immediately explain much of the corruption we see in the world today. Consider them in the context of a specialised profession like medicine, and you can immediately explain a lot of problems in the US healthcare industry.

Re:Are you that slow?

[s.petry]

Are we back to on-line discussions again now? If so, then I haven't proposed any general limitation on who may comment, only that when doing so people shouldn't be able to claim protected qualification or authority that they do not legitimately possess.

First, apology for the delay in response. Time does not always favor internet based discussions.

To the meat of it, the only thing I can gather is that you want to somehow ensure that everyone's identity is available and verifiable on every comment. That will still result in censorship, and in fact it already does create censorship. I'll argue that it's the worst kind of censorship as well, because it relies not on actions based on restrictions but generalized fear and intimidation.

If you wish to verify my statement, simply look at a place like China where the only way to post is with your true identity. People do not post anti-government posts because they will be jailed even if they disagree with a Government action. People do not post religious comments, because that will get them put in jail. They don't post that they are starving, have poor working conditions, or anything else that may reflect negatively on the Chinese government because they will be jailed. Currently people are forced to try and circumvent the system, which also lands them in jail.

If China is not a good enough example, how about Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran.

In the US, we already have cases of people being fired for saying things that someone does not like. The UK has similar issues from what I read.

To your last point, sure people lie. Many of the guilty are currently protected, and that is where your last paragraph is simply false. In the UK for example, there was a child sex slave ring that was being covered up by politicians for years. We have many similar stories in the US. This is because journalists are censored, not because they can operate in the open. Again, you put the blame in the complete wrong spot. You are blaming a lack of censorship when it is exactly censorship at fault.

I can provide you with over 2,400 years of history to prove my case. I challenged you to provide just one example of censorship working, and you came up empty (again). So again, I think you have a delusion that you need to dispel.

Re:Are you that slow?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

To the meat of it, the only thing I can gather is that you want to somehow ensure that everyone's identity is available and verifiable on every comment.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm only saying that if you are actively claiming a certain level of protected qualification, you should actually have it.

This is quite orthogonal to the issue of anonymity, which IMHO is a much harder one simply because someone who can't be identified is self-evidently immune from prosecution but as you rightly point out anonymity has also been a positive influence on many of the most significant breakthroughs in recent history. There are clearly both genuine pros and genuine cons to anonymous speech.

It's true that if we allow anonymity then someone could claim false qualifications even if doing so is illegal. However, I think we are slowly learning as a society not to trust everything we read on the Internet when we don't know the source, and this somewhat mitigates the damage.

I challenged you to provide just one example of censorship working, and you came up empty (again).

Here are a few places where a degree of censorship might be morally justifiable -- not saying it necessarily is, but there's enough of an argument for reasonable debate:

Protection of individual privacy

Innocent until proven guilty

Operational details of genuine military/security activities

Advertising aimed at minors or other vulnerable people

Advertising prescription-only medication to non-prescribers

Political advertising by artificial legal entities (businesses etc.)

As a matter of law, various first world jurisdictions do in fact take different positions on some of these issues today.

Once again, I don't think anyone here is disputing that censorship is fundamentally a nasty and potentially very damaging idea. I think the rational debate is about whether things like spreading misinformation, infringing privacy, and taking advantage of the vulnerable are worse.

Re:Are you that slow?

[s.petry]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm only saying that if you are actively claiming a certain level of protected qualification, you should actually have it.

No, it's not orthogonal at all. I gave you the reason, and like any other argument you don't like you just pretend it was never presented.

The only way to ensure someone has "qualifications" is to register every identity. People that are disliked for their opinions can lose qualifications among other punishments, so we no longer have safe and open dialogue.

The current option allows readers to discern fact from fantasy. I read tons of fantasy from both the US and UK Government, and it's provable fantasy. Closing the door on anyone but them will make things worse, not better. If you want an example, where are the WMDs the UK and US bombed Iraq over? Those AL-Quaida terrorist training camps? Oh yeah, our Governments lied to us.

Lastly, your list of censorship you claim works DO NOT EXIST. They are completely fabricated and flat out lies. The only thing that has a bit of reality associated with it is Military activities, but that is not censorship due to opinions and something I'm not completely against.

Re:Why are we getting this garbage again?

[Bing Tsher E]

In the spirit of egalitarianism UIDs didn't even used to get displayed on Slashdot.

It wasn't until (the *horror* of it) people started forging Bruce Perens' name on posts that they switched it so that UIDs are displayed. It was a dark day.

Thanks, Bruce.

Re:translation: whites reject multiculturalism onl

[Bing Tsher E]

Or ask Sunni's how racist Shittites are agaisnt them...

Sunnis and Shiites are schismatic muslims, not racists. You've illustrated how meaningless the term 'racist' has become.

In fact, people who worry incessantly about 'racism' are people who've finely tuned their racism. They're generally some of the most racist people in a culture.

Fuck that. We're all people (not soylent green).

Re:translation: whites reject multiculturalism onl

[Bing Tsher E]

Perhaps he teaches English in Texas to Somali refugees.

Re: Mount Stupid

[Bing Tsher E]

What does the 'Stupid' stand for.

It's 'Star Trek Unboxed Parts' something or other, right? Like the stuff on that Magic The Gathering Exchange?

They used Public Service Announcements

[russotto]

Everyone over the age of 5 knows a Public Service Announcement is propaganda. Of course the comments were more influential; they didn't have to clear a high bar. Give it a few years and everyone will know the comments are mostly from shills, trolls, and know-nothings, and we'll be back to the healthy status quo of no one with any sense believing anything they read without triple-checking it.

Re:That Explains Why Online News Is Removing Comme

[argStyopa]

Yet if you gave readers the opportunity to turn on/off visible comments, I wonder which would win?

I'm almost certain most people would leave the comments, after all, you don't have to read them. Which then suggests that no, it really IS more about protecting themselves as the sole authority, because monologue is so much easier than dialogue.

"Great" Journalism Deserves Protection?

[s.petry]

Brian Williams is proof. Those damn people that proved him a liar blew it, he was one of the highest rated bullshit sellers on NBC for decades.

Oh, I know.. it's not like journalists are supposed to.. you know.. make a journal of their expeditions. They never write shit down or capture pictures.. so it was clearly "false memory" that caused the problem right?

I really hope you are not dumb enough to believe anything you are told by media, including that last line. Brian Williams had a job of selling war, and he did it well. That does not make him a journalist, and yes people need to speak out against the corruption. Even if most claims of corruption are bullshit, that protection must remain. Agent provocateurs do exist, and people are paid handsomely to generate false outrage (see Gamergate).

Re:translation: whites reject multiculturalism onl

[BarbaraHudson]

How can they increase the supply of labor? Multiculturalism, racial integration, feminism and mass immigration increases the supply of labor, thus depressing wages and increasing corporate profits.

For a long time, this increase in the supply of labour allowed people to consume more. They could buy bigger houses, newer cars, take vacations, and the economy grew like crazy. A two-income family can earn and spend more than a single-income family, and all those "Rosie the Riveters" were no longer going to take a back seat in the economy. The growing economy created labour shortages, which increased wages, allowing people to consume even more. It was a "virtuous circle" that worked from the 1940s more or less to the late 1970s. Then things changed.

The trend of rising incomes was slowly undone, not by an increased supply of labour, but increases in productivity that averaged 2% per year. This is what created an over-supply of labour where there was none before, and is why real wages have remained stagnant for 40 years. Businesses, instead of taking those gains and re-investing them in employees, took to juicing the next quarter to keep their stocks up, even though in the long run this is self-defeating.

Credibility

[penguinoid]

If only the authors of the article had any sort of credibility, people wouldn't turn to comments to verify the information. For example, when it comes to scientific articles, we generally disregard the comments by the journalists reporting on it while valuing the original scientific article or the comments explaining why the journalist is full of shit.

Re: Another pro-vaccination article

[Gonoff]

You mean not stupid?

What do you expect...

[fuckface]

from a guy who calls himself fuckface? I'll comment however the fuck I want.

Re: My two cents

[byornski]

Furthermore are you a day-knight or a night-knight?

Gossip

[minstrelmike]

Aren't they essentially demonstrating how gossip works? The folks that talk the most about stuff you're interested in always seem to have the most credibility.

I come for the comments?

[lippydude]

@Bogtha: '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".'

It's rare that any comment here adds to the total sum of human knowledge. For instance just take a look at the comments on "Nim Programming Language Gaining Traction".

Re: Another pro-vaccination article

[sudon't]

Educated people generally skew towards liberalism. Why are you here?

Re:credibility?

[tverbeek]

I did say "sad and desperate".

Re: Another pro-vaccination article

[epyT-R]

'Educated' people are often the most indoctrinated. Some are smart, maybe, but not out-of-box critical thinkers. They've been in the system the longest. Did you know the term liberal originally referred to the philosophy behind the libertarians before it referred to 'social liberalism'?

Re:"I wait, for you..." apk

[swillden]

Yay, my stalker is back! I missed you, man. Where were you?

Re:Pot calling a kettle black, hypocrite?

[swillden]

Four whole days to respond? Come on, you can do better than that.

Re:10 days to respond & you ran, troll

[swillden]

That's more like it!

This game is entertaining me :-)

Re:swillden = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"

[swillden]

I think this is the easiest trolling I've ever done.

Re:It's running you're doing... apk

[swillden]

Oh, I never said it's cool to be a troll.

It is, however, great fun to troll you.

Re:It's even MORE fun

[swillden]

What's particularly funny about all of this is that you actually believe that you're shaming me. In point of fact, assuming anyone actually bothers to read this stuff (very unlikely), you're just making yourself look ridiculous, continuing to accuse me of somehow failing to support a position I never took.

No one is buying it, dude. No one.

Also, I should point out that you're really failing as a stalker. I've made like a dozen posts in other threads and you haven't spammed any but this one. Step it up, man!