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

[quantaman]

John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory:

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad

Face it, it explains everything.

I think it explains half, mostly the trolling half.

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

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

Re:First Post

[Kevin Fishburne]

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad

Face it, it explains everything.

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

Yeah, right

[msobkow]

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

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

Re:Yeah, right

[AmiMoJo]

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

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

Re:Yeah, right

[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

[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.

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!

[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]

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

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.

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: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.

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: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

[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: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: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: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.