The Guardian and Comments - April 2016

adding here my thread:
http://jothut.com/cgi-bin/junco.pl/replies/68594

---

"In case you're new to the internet:"articles written by women attract more abuse/trolling than those written by men"" https://twitter.com/astrokatie/status/719852228320694272 - #media #comments - what's funny is that the media people who oppose comments on news sites also love twitter. #moronism
From: JR's : micro blog - Apr 12, 2016 - reply

16 replies
JR: women writers feel abuse from the trolls on twitter too. some media orgs ended their comments on their news sites because they believe that the real discussions occur on those great spaces of social media civility, such as twitter and facebook.
- 2 hrs ago - # - reply

JR: media person's tweet https://twitter.com/karenkho/status/719852876416344064 - "@mathewi I know you love and defend comments, but this really shows why they're horrible for women and POC." --- yet she uses twitter to broadcast her claim.
- 2 hrs ago - # - reply

JR: comments on media sites are not the problem. how the media orgs manage their comment systems is the problem. in my opinion, it's easier to create civil discussions on your own site than on social media. more barriers to entry are needed. it's not impossible. imagination is required.
- 2 hrs ago - # - reply

JR: http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/04/the-guardians-web-we-want-series-will-analyze-abuse-on-the-papers-own-site/
- 2 hrs ago - # - reply

JR: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/08/the-guardian-wants-to-engage-with-readers-but-how-we-do-it-needs-to-evolve
- 2 hrs ago - # - reply

JR: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/11/the-guardian-view-on-online-abuse-building-the-web-we-want
- 2 hrs ago - # - reply

JR: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments
- 2 hrs ago - # - reply

JR: http://mediagazer.com/160412/p7#a160412p7
- 2 hrs ago - # - reply

JR: "The Guardian, which receives more than 50,000 reader comments a day ..." - yowzer! i had no idea that the site received that money comments. the solutions for giant sites like The Guardian, NY Times, and WaPo will differ greatly from what might work for mid-sized metro daily like The Toledo Blade.
- 1 hr ago - # - reply

JR: quoting from the guardian stories now ...
- 7 mins ago - # - reply

JR: "The internet has a problem, and that problem is people." ---- Conversely, the internet offers a lot of good, and that good is people. Or better, replace "internet" with "world". The world has a problem, and that problem is people. The world has a lot of good, and that good is people.
- 6 mins ago - # - reply

JR: "Dramatic incidents of public harassment, abuse and threatening behaviour are never far from the news ..." -- that's not restricted to the internet only. violent behavior has existed in the world for thousands of years.
- 4 mins ago - # - reply

JR: "There is a widespread perception that these are problems that need to be solved, and many digital media sites - including Twitter, Facebook and many others - are actively looking for solutions." ----
- 4 mins ago - # - reply

JR: interesting. a lot of uncivil discussions occur on or via twitter and facebook, and yet some people are looking to those orgs for solutions. many media orgs failed to be innovative on how to manage comments with their custom solutions, therefore those orgs outsourced their discussions to Facebook.
- 2 mins ago - # - reply

JR: trading one cesspool for another is not a solution. custom solutions can work, in my opinion, if barriers are erected that deter the trolls and spammers. the users who want to create a true community won't mind the barriers. the media org must give such a system one to two years to grow.
- 57 secs ago - # - reply

JR: "For news organisations, the question is no longer whether or not we want to engage with our audience: no news organisation that wants to be relevant in the digital age would dream of retreating from social media, and engagement in many forms is vital to our survival."
- 0 secs ago - # - reply

In some places, news organisations are stepping away from comments, deciding that the costs outweigh the benefits, and turning to other modes of interaction instead - often away from their own platforms, in striking contrast to other industries which are eager to invite interaction that they can manage and own.

The Guardian is not making that retreat - but that means we do have to evolve and manage our comments deliberately. We are not like the 4chan message boards, where anyone can say almost anything without consequences. Just as Facebook, Twitter, Metafilter and many others provide spaces for different kinds of communities to gather, we want to create spaces on the Guardian for particular conversations and particular groups to speak - with each other and with us.

Glad that MetaFilter was mentioned. Too often when the topic of comments or user-contributed content is discussed, MetaFilter's barriers are not mentioned.

The issue of comments on news sites is often conflated with conversations about free speech - about the ability of individuals to speak their minds without fear of government censorship.

I've heard that argument often at Toledo Talk. Users have accused me of censorship and prohibiting free speech. But even 4chan has removed postings that violate the site's guidelines. Free speech does not exist at Toledo Talk nor at any of these other sites. Users have the freedom to start their own websites, and they can manage their sites anyway they want.

ToledoTalk.com posting guidelines :

ToledoTalk.com is NOT a free speech zone.

Some people think they should be allowed to post whatever they want on a message board that's owned and funded by someone else. And if these users are denied the ability to post whatever and however they want, then they believe the site owner is engaged in censorship. That's all wrong thinking.

I'll let other Toledo Talk users explain how it works.

photodan said in April 2005:

"jr has every right to make this site as closed or even as censored as he wants it to be. If he decided that the word, "it" was not allowed to be posted then that is his right. This is not free speech. We are only allowed to post here at jr's whim since he's the one paying for it. He owns the space we are scrawling upon."

psyche777 said in June 2005:

"There is no such thing as free speech on message boards -- they are controlled by those who own them. So unless you own your own? pretty much have to play by whatever rules exist."

When a user ignorantly plays the free speech card, then it's probably okay to ban that user.

Back to The Guardian story:

Moderation is not censorship, any more than editing is - it’s a careful process that aims to curate the best of the web and allow expert voices and thoughtful discussion to emerge.

When a person or an org funds the site, that org can manage the site however it wants.

We are going to be implementing policies and procedures to protect our staff from the impact of abuse and harassment online, as well as from the impact of repeatedly being exposed to traumatic images. We are also changing the process for new commenters, so that they see our community guidelines and are welcomed to the Guardian’s commenting community. On that point, we are reviewing those community standards to make them much clearer and simpler to understand, and to place a greater emphasis on respect.

We are also looking at how our moderation processes and practices work. We have already changed the structure of the moderation team to give them greater visibility and authority within the Guardian, and we are streamlining the process of reviewing moderation decisions for consistency and other factors. We’re examining our off-topic policy and will be moving to make its application more transparent.

More ...

Building a community is a difficult endeavour even under perfect conditions, and changing the way a community works once it has been established is even more difficult. Fostering constructive debate on topics that are often flashpoints for severe disagreement is harder still: it is easier to allow one side to drown out another, and for an echo chamber to form around those with the loudest and most persistent voices. Smaller communities are - for the most part - both easier to manage and calmer; one of the side-effects of the Guardian’s global reach is a global community below the line, which can come together positively or with great antagonism depending on the topic to hand.

Yep. The dynamics for The Guardian are vastly different than what exists for The Toledo Blade, which unfortunately uses Facebook's commenting system on its stories.

Since our change in strategy to reduce the number of threads open on contentious topics, there has not been a major reduction in the numbers of comments we receive - but we have seen some changes in tone. There are more diverse voices emerging in these threads, and while they are still divisive and divided conversations, there is (on the whole) more engagement with the issues, and less abuse. Of course, this is still a work in progress, and there is a great deal more to do.

Good move. Does every news story need to accept comments?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/08/how-can-we-improve-the-guardian-comments-share-your-views

The Guardian's - The Web We Want - "How can we end online abuse, and have better conversations on the web?"

The Guardian should have added to "The Web We Want" the idea of faster, smaller, and simpler article pages.

We want a thinner web. We want a web that respects basic functionality that existed 20-plus years ago.