Slashdot Mirror


Another Wave of Publications Shut Down Online Comments

AmiMoJo writes: The debate about comment sections on news sites is often as divisive as the comments themselves. Recently outlets such as The Verge and The Daily Dot have closed their comments sections because they've become too hard to manage. And they're far from alone. Moderating comments is a full-time job (or several full-time jobs) at many news organisations. Nicholas White, editor at The Daily Dot, noted that "in our experience, our community hasn't evolved in our comments. It's evolved in our social media accounts. To have comments, you have to be very active, and if you're not incredibly active, what ends up happening is a mob can shout down all the other people on your site. In an environment that isn't heavily curated it becomes about silencing voices and not about opening up voices."

Riese, co-founder and editor-in-chief of LGBT site Autostraddle, adds, "I completely understand why The Daily Dot wouldn't want to have comments — or in fact why most websites wouldn't want to have comments. I think 75% of the time they're more trouble than they're worth, and for us it's still a lot of work to keep up on. Not all of our users are necessarily on Facebook or are out as gay on Facebook, or are comfortable talking about queer stuff on Facebook. We keep comments on the site which is a safe space for people to exchange ideas — and that's a big factor for us."

21 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Slashdot by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I completely understand why [...] most websites wouldn't want to have comments. I think 75% of the time they're more trouble than they're worth[...]

    Yeah, well, at least fucking Slashdot still allows fucking comments. Can you imagine Slashdot without all our fucking insightful comments?

    1. Re:Slashdot by MouseR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slashdot with comments is dying.

      When I first signed up, stories hard hundreds, if not thousands of comments and most where relevant.

      Now, it's just fucking kiddy trolls that dont even bother signing up or maintaining their passwords. Stories dwindled down to less than 100 comments, most of which are anonymous garbage.

      To save Slashdot, posting as anonymous should require still being logged in. This way, most posts would be accountable to someone and you'd still have the possibility of anonymity for protection against reprisal from peers. (And even that is debatable... not like this is wikileaks).

    2. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stories dwindled down to less than 100 comments, most of which are anonymous garbage.

      Which just means you want a name to attack when you read something that disagrees with your opinions. Ok, maybe you aren't one of those who take that stance to be spiteful, but I've stalked Slashdot enough to know that it happens. I've seen people insta-negged when posting something informative and on topic because in some other discussion elsewhere they offended some people with karma who could not use it in that story due to their own commenting.

      I propose an alternate option. No user names associated with any post ever. Instead of the current posted by line, there will be a button to send a PM to the post author. If it's an AC post, the PM goes directly nowhere, but that would be indistinguishable from PMing someone who has no interest in replying to you. Let comments stand on their own weight instead of sick popularity contests.

    3. Re:Slashdot by Layzej · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the unquestioning stance on climate change and vaccines,

      You can't really fault a nerd site for having a pro-science bias.

    4. Re:Slashdot by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "unquestioning" support is "pro-science"?

      I'd contend that there's no such thing as a "pro-science bias". You can either be pro-science or biased, but not both at once.

    5. Re:Slashdot by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Finally someone who gets it.

      If you aren't questioning you aren't sciencing - it's called religion.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    6. Re: Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Why is it autism is the only standard vaccines are allowd to be judged by when yelling "tin-foil nutcase!"?

      I could inject epoxy into a vein, it probably wouldn't cause autism, but in the world of crazy callers it's safe because it cleared that standard meanwhile the tinfoil hat guys refuse to inject epoxy.....

    7. Re:Slashdot by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slashdot's not a publication. It's a community with links to articles as topics of conversation.

      The raison d'etre of publications is producing articles and other pieces of content. The raison d'etre of Slashdot is the community and the discourse of other people's content.

      tl;dr: Without (an effective system for) comments there is no Slashdot.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  2. Yes, comments are too hard to police. by ravenshrike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, that's primarily because censoring viewpoints tales quite a bit of work and the more reflective an echo chamber you want to built the more censoring there is to be done.

    1. Re:Yes, comments are too hard to police. by mlw4428 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or perhaps it's to keep an air of professionalism or at least family friendliness on the site? Also you don't have a right to your viewpoints on private property/websites/whatever. As a website owner I don't have to let you speak your mind and maybe I don't care to know why you feel that black people are the superior race or that Democrats are all evil. News organizations have no duty to let "the people's voice" be heard...nor does any other organization that is not operating as a local/state/federal branch of the United States government (in the US at least...other countries may have similar or different laws).

    2. Re:Yes, comments are too hard to police. by pla · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The internet is not "professional", or even remotely "family friendly". Simple as that.

      And no, you don't need to give me a forum to speak my mind on your website - You have every right to host an echo chamber. Just don't act surprised when your "community" consists of nothing but Tumblrinas (or just vanishes altogether).

    3. Re:Yes, comments are too hard to police. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, at least in the case of The Verge, they are disabling comments to hide their complete lack of professionalism.

      If they publish an article which is blatantly WRONG - there's no way for their readers to see that the content is wrong.

      https://plus.google.com/+RonAm...

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    4. Re:Yes, comments are too hard to police. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have every right to host an unmoderated forum. Just don't act surprised when your "community" consists of nothing but trolls and people kicked off 8chan.

      FTFY.

      Not every site has to be 8chan or an echo chamber, there is a middle ground.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Makes sense by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've a lot of sympathy. Some sites - like Slashdot - are all about the comments (for which the stories act as little more than a prompt). But those sites tend to have well-throught-through community structures and moderations in place. Much as we all gripe about Slashdot sometimes, its moderation system remains best-in-class.

    A lot of other sites I frequent have been "going toxic" over the last couple of years, often as a result of their comments sections (I'll highlight Eurogamer and Kotaku as partial examples and Animenewsnetwork as an uber-example). The comments threads usually descend into two (or sometimes more) camps of people, yelling "SJW!" or "MRA!" at each other. Over time, the site's editors and authors get pulled into one side or the other and the site stops playing for a general audience and just becomes another factional advocacy site.

    Blocking comments therefore makes a degree of sense for sites which want to preserve the quality of their writing but which don't have the resources (or a sufficiently engaged readership) to make Slashdot-style community moderation work. It's actually pretty admirable in some respects, because it is actually incurring an immediate financial penalty for the site, assuming its business model is advertising based. After all, if somebody reads a story once, you get a single page-view. If they reload the story two dozen times to participate in a flame war in the comments, that's two dozen page-views. Indeed, it's hard to read some articles on the sites I mentioned above (and many more besides) and see them as anything other than flamebait designed to encourage high page-view wars in the comments.

  4. Re:propaganda doesn't work well when called out by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These media outlets have enough trouble preventing their own journalists from deviating from the media narrative. An audience that can contradict their media narrative is just too much for them to handle.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  5. So much for many-to-many communication by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're going back to the old ways!

    WE SAY, YOU LISTEN!

    Thank you,
    Old media (and now new media too)

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  6. The People's Voice by MagickalMyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comments are the people's voice.

    Disallowing or removing contents is to censor the average person's thoughts, ideas and opinions - often in favor of biased information or propaganda.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  7. 99% of comments are garbage by Theovon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the problem. It seems like most Internet users act like morons. I'm not saying they ARE morons, but we all know how a degree of anonymity can cause people to lose control of their inhibitions about what they say. I've seen comment threads that were extremely informative, but that's rare, and mostly on the more obscure websites. Any website that attracts a broader spectrum of users is going to get a lot more moronic posts. People misunderstand the content, flame the content, flame each other, post SPAM, and just generally cause havoc. It's hard to find a signal in the noise. Even when people are well-meaning (which a lot of them are not), discussions can completely devolve.

    Sites like slashdot and reddit, which are built on comments, have to have elaborate systems of moderation in order to keep the crap in check. Imagine a completely unmoderated system. It would be completely useless. Oh wait. We had usenet, and from the moment the AOLers got access, it went into decline, and now it's basically dead.

    99% of everything on the Internet is crap. Statistically, that includes my comment as well.

  8. Why question, if you refuse to listen to answers? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you aren't questioning you aren't sciencing - it's called religion.

    And when you don't listen when your questions are answered in detail it's not skepticism, it's denial.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  9. Re:Blame the trolls and other idiots by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tolerating trolls to some extent is the price you pay for freedom of speech.

    Just as the threat of terrorism doesn't justify a police state, and at some point a society has to just accept the remaining risk instead of growing more draconian or else it ends up doing more harm than the harm it's trying to prevent; so too trolls and other assholes don't justify censorship, and at some point a community just has to put up with them instead of tightening the screws or else it ends up doing more harm than the harm it's trying to prevent.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  10. Free Speech melts Special Snowflakes by clonehappy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Essentially the argument against free, anonymous speech is that people will show the world exactly how they feel deep down inside. They won't filter, they won't self-censor, they won't be politically correct. And that's A Bad Thing(tm) according to the powers that be, so we have to shut it down. What a cowardly fucking attitude to have.

    Grow a fucking set and learn to deal with criticism. Some people don't like me for whatever reason. A few even probably HATE me. And that's absolutely their right to do so. In fact, it's a pillar of free society to be able to have whatever opinions you like, whether or not it hurts someone's feelings, or (gasp!) makes someone uncomfortable or shatters the fragile little ego of some useless millennial* leech who can't attain respect on their own merits so they have to demand respect from society through the control of thought and language to protect themselves from the truth.

    I think pure, unadulterated, uncensored, open speech is the most beautiful thing in the world. As hateful or unpopular as much of that speech is, it's how someone really feels and that person deserves to have their say just as much as any special snowflake or "safe space" dweller. In fact those snowflakes are the majority amongst the millennials of my generation due to their narcissistic addiction to social media and their tendency to be "followers". Where are the safe spaces for the minority of us who can still think critically and for ourselves, peer pressure and popular opinion be damned?

    And if comment sections are so overrun with said incorrect thoughts, you have to wonder if maybe the people censoring them are the ones that are "incorrect".