Are comment sections a joke?
Nick Denton, founder of Gawker, offered a provocative assessment of online discussion forums like the RT today. At South by Southwest Interactive, he argued that comment sections failed to become forums for intelligent discussion. Check out the details in this story at CNN.
In the early days of the Internet, there was hope that the unprecedented tool for global communication would lead to thoughtful sharing and discussion on its most popular sites.
A decade and a half later, the very idea is laughable, says Gawker Media founder Nick Denton.
“It didn’t happen,” said Denton, whose properties include the blogs Gawker, Jezebel, Gizmodo, io9 and Lifehacker. “It’s a promise that has so not happened that people don’t even have that ambition anymore.
“The idea of capturing the intelligence of the readership — that’s a joke.”
Those of you who are regulars must get something out of engaging here at the RT. What say you to Denton?
March 12, 2012 - 3:48 PM
You would have to get rid of anonymous postings. You’d probably lose comments but gain a more civil discourse. But then again, probably not to what they fantasized about. Most likely there would be a curb of trolling or ridiculous posts and thats if you could even verify actual names anyways. Way more fun the way it is.
I say Denton is precisely spot on. Instead of seeing this (or any) forum as a place to hear other opinions and try to have a conversation, it is simply an insult fest or a “see how far the moderator will let you take it” contest. On the rare days when there is an actual conversation instead of pointed barbs masked in a comment, this is the greatest place to be. It does not happen often as no one likes insults, dishonesty and blatant disrespect, which we seldom have to wait long for. It is more like a bizarre tug of war most days than any kind of enlightenment or enjoyable discussion.
I personally think you should have a “Left” and a “Right” blog and just accept the divide is permanent. We have proven we are too far apart and have too much animus for anything else to work IMO. You folks should know that better than any one of us. You KNOW you are not a “liberal rag” and yet how often do you hear it said? The idea of civil discussion isn’t going to work. The number one comment I hear when I talk to people about blogging is that they hate how it always devolves. Even with a moderator, it is inevitable. No matter how wrong you might actually be, no one likes to have their beliefs sullied, their sincerity, honesty, sanity or decency questioned. That is not even natural.
Once a year in Virginia and every four years in this nation, we are asked to “pick sides”. We do and most of us take that somewhat seriously. It is not going to change. YOU, the medium, will have to to do the changing IMO. The sooner you accept that and make the changes needed, the better the conversations will become, with or without anonymity.
I would say the RT discussions are no less thoughtful or serious than those coming out of Washington, the hallowed halls of Congress, the White House, Fox “News”, the GOP, the CPUSA/Dem Party, or the humor section of the New York Times.
Even in the early days, there was a minority of us who said that the internet would crate far more polarization — as folk would seek out like-minded folk and amen each other.
I predicted that individuals with extreme views, unorthodox desires, etc and who were isolated in society outside of the big cities would use the internet to link up. The internet as a haven for prono was predicted very early on.
I don’t think I foresaw the lack of civil discourse, the name calling, the illogical exchanges (posing as debate), etc on sites like the RT, as I foresaw more folk seeking out their own — each little cluster with its own very separate version of the truth, and each fully segregated from the others.
Well before the internet it had been noted that in mixes groups most folk avoided talking about divisive issues. Not so in groups of the like-minded.
As to the internet, just go back and look at the some of the “newsgroups” back in the “usenet” days. Even within any activity, hobby, opinion, etc separate groups sprung up where like-minded shared ideas and created their own orthodoxy. Then the true-believers belittled, as heresy, the comments of any who dared challenge that site’s orthodox take on things.
Sandi, IMHO it is far more than just a “Left” and a “Right” economic issues thing. There is also authoritarian v. (small “l”) libertarian thing. The like-minded shared ideas and created their own orthodoxy even sprung up around products (thing Apple v Windows). There any number of religious subdivision. Sexual clusters run the gamut.
Thanks for your thoughts on this subject. I’m interested in your feedback about some opinion websites that make an effort to have a more focused debate on specific topics. I’ve mentioned The Economist Debates before (http://www.economist.com/debate/debates/overview/224). I also like The New York Times Room for Debate feature (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/09/kony-2012-and-the-potential-of-social-media-activism).
Are you familiar with these and would you find them useful if we adopted a similar feature for discussion? What do you like and dislike about these two formats?
Yes, it is a joke. I still post from time to time, but not being a traditional left wing or right wing person I rarely see the point in doing it. The overwhelming majority on these sections (including this one) is a hardcore left winger or right winger. They are only interested in conversations/threads that advance their political agenda. Having a serious discussion on deeper issues just isn’t going to happen with two sets of competing talking points.
I am not sure I see anything better or more user friendly on either of those sites.
I looked at the Virginian-Pilot PilotOnline.com today and I really liked the features and loved the “Verified User” option as well as the blocking of commenters you do not want to see. Losing the Captch Code would be great!
Certainly it goes beyond “just a “Left” and a “Right” economic issues thing”, but I think that simple division on this site would do wonders for the discourse. The reality is as you stated for human beings in general, “Well before the internet it had been noted that in mixes groups most folk avoided talking about divisive issues. Not so in groups of the like-minded.” I am a very different poster in a room of people who agree with the basic tenets of my political “side”. I am not going to go out of my way, or make much effort to be kind, civil and accommodating to someone who starts out with “those stupid liberals” or some iteration of that sentiment. I dare say most of the more conservative people here would be any different if they were feeling the heat.
You know very well what a blog can deteriorate into. Insult swapping, and even vicious name calling where all hope of a discussion is lost is easy. Some may not like it, but that IS the state of this nation and denying it by forcing people to conform, policing every post or expecting people to just overlook insults to their core beliefs, religion or political positions is just not working.
Sandi, before coming up to the NRV, I lived in Hampton Roads and read the Virginian Pilot. I’ve enjoyed their website too, and how they handle things. Even though I haven’t lived there since 2000, I still check their site regularly to read up on the news there. I don’t comment nearly as often as I once did, but I still try to read up on things when I can.
I doubt there is a perfect blog, but that one sure has some features I liked and can see being REALLY helpful here!
I enjoy (for the most part)coming to this forum to discuss(mostly) political topics… I LEARN as I research other people’s opinion to see if it stands scrutiny…I LEARN I might be wr….wr…wron… not as informed as I should be or think I might be.
The moderators do a fine job of keeping everything civil. When I look to other venues of discussion, I do see profanity, namecalling, profane namecalling which usually signals to me that person has lost the argument.
So sorry Mr. Denton that we have failed to live up to your expectations.
Cruel world.
Like BUD, I also enjoy the learning aspect the most. Whether it’s through research I do myself or arguments that others present, I get exposed to new data, new ideas, and new ways of thinking. It helps me refine my own thinking.
I also enjoy the size of the community here. Small enough that you can have actual conversations, but large enough that you see a spectrum of opinions.
The moderating here has worked pretty well. Things have been mostly civil (though there have been breakdowns at times), and tying topics to commentaries keeps us discussing a broad range of issues. If everything were an “open thread”, I fear that most of the bandwidth would be dedicated to arguments about personalities rather than issues. Like the (ahem) recent Rush/Maher thread that developed.
Dave Hicks is right. The internet has allowed us to seek out like minded people who create their own orthodoxy. Sandi is right also: many people don’t like to have their deep convictions questioned, insulted, etc. Indeed, most people like to confirm their beliefs.
Considering both Dave Hicks and Sandi Saunders’ statements, I agree with BUD. Ironically, the internet has accelerated insular thinking. People go to the news sources, blogs, and cherry-picked research that confirms their already existing perspectives of the world (confirmation bias). When evidence or reason contradicts our paradigm, we try to ignore it (e.g., we’ll dismiss ‘studies’ from organizations by assuming or alleging some political bias or private interest underlies the results–which is sometimes true, but you know what I mean). We all have our own set of facts and interpretations of those facts–and the more we surround ourselves with people that simply agree or confirm those interpretations, the more incapable we are of communicating those interpretations/ideas with ‘outsiders.’
I, personally, enjoy putting my arguments up for challenge, having my interpretation of facts critically assessed, and even my deepest convictions questioned. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, more unsettling and uncomfortable than learning you’re wrong–but it is also incredibly liberating, exciting, and engaging. So, I agree with BUD, I prefer talking to people who disagree with my arguments/assumptions, so I can both (a) test my argument and see if I am wrong, and (b) truly understand the opposing view points and arguments.
Oh yeah–I think that the Roanoke Times should allows commenting on every story.
WPGHSC, I think maybe you are assuming some facts not in evidence. When I am in a room of Dems or Liberals, I KNOW that I can be as critical, damning and questioning of the policies, decisions, history, future, candidates and issues of my own party as I want to be without being “disloyal” and there is no such thing as any opinion not being challenged, and if too far out, beaten into the ground, but it is a very different kind of beating than Michael or Chuck would deliver in the very same discussion.
When I discuss my children with my husband, it is a different conversation than when I discuss them with co-workers. When you are not comfortable with a room, you are not going to be as open, as honest, as forthcoming of your own shortcomings or those of your party, your faith, your school, your line of work, your candidates, or any other topic as when you know that you all have the same goal. Certainly you are not when you are already on the defensive.
I am not looking for a “mutual admiration society”, I am looking for a true discussion from a place of support, change and making it better, not gamesmanship, points scored and enemies defeated as we have now.
I cannot speak for Dave Hicks, but I think that “like-minded” folks are the people who will have the in-depth analysis and critiques that make for enlightenment and progress. The tit-for-tat here seldom even comes close.
More thoughts… WPGHSC describes the benefits of RoundTable participation quite nicely: “The more we surround ourselves with people that simply agree or confirm those interpretations, the more incapable we are of communicating those interpretations/ideas with ‘outsiders’“. I likewise share the desire to “both (a) test my argument and see if I am wrong, and (b) truly understand the opposing view points and arguments“.
Don’t like the “Live Chats”, though… I tried participating in one, and felt like I was in a massive multi-party shouting match, with the fastest typist taking the prize. Also, too many comments got ignored.
I am still wrestling with the premise that being in a conversation with people of the same political, religious or work genre is attempting to “surround ourselves with people that simply agree or confirm those interpretations”. Have you been in a room full of Methodists? Engineers? Race Fans? Again, it is not simply a mutual admiration society where everyone affirms everyone’s position and back slaps a witty post.
The people who are least effective in “communicating those interpretations/ideas with ‘outsiders’“ are the ones with limited research, sources, information and experience not the ones who just have a strong opinion. I am only a high school graduate, never an ounce of any college yet only in the more technical and industry specific detailed conversations can I not comprehend, evaluate and discuss something with anyone.
I admire the idea of “the desire to “both (a) test my argument and see if I am wrong, and (b) truly understand the opposing view points and arguments“, but I seldom see that play out here and never see it on a blog like Dan Casey’s. That is just not the room we are working in as far as I can tell.
I think you also are hanging on to the ideal of what the internet was supposed to offer as opposed to what is before your eyes. I give you points for that ideal, I just do not see it in any practical sense being played out.
15- Brian, I appreciate your feedback on the live chats. The chats are an attempt to give our readers opportunities to interact with guest columnists, but the format does have its limitations. Not everyone can participate at a scheduled time, and it can be a 30-minute frenzy rather than a thoughtful discussion. That’s why I’ve been asking for input about the formats used by the Economist and the NYT for directed debates. Those debate/discussions can take place over multiple days, so that more people can join in when it’s convenient. The format encourages participants to test their arguments and reach a better understanding of others’ points of view. When I’ve asked for feedback on these sites I’ve gotten pretty tepid responses. Maybe that’s because people think it’s a substitute for the open thread discussions. I don’t view them in that way. I view them as a possible alternative to the live chats or a supplement perhaps. I’d be interested in your thoughts on those two sites (see my post at 5 above) or others that you have come across. Thanks!
To #17 (Christina): My apologies for the late reply. Yesterday evening got away from me, and I couldn’t get to it until lunchtime today.
Anyway, I looked at both the NYT and Economist websites, to see how their “directed debates” worked. I didn’t care for the NYT format. Each writer had to essentially write a 500-word argument, and there didn’t appear to be any place for follow-up arguments. If I’m going to write up an argument in that much detail, I’m probably going to submit it for publication to the Roanoke Times. Not just post it on a blog. And the opportunity for follow-up arguments is important, especially if the initial write-ups were “talking sideways past each other”.
The format used by the Economist was better. They presented lots of follow-up arguments and clearly allowed additional commentary. The only question is if it could be reasonably expanded beyond the three-person (two debaters and a moderator) format.
And some additional thoughts on what we have today…
The CAPTCHAs are annoying, but probably a necessary evil. I’ve seen mailing lists get overrun by spam, so I know that some sort of “flow control” is necessary. The only other alternative I can think of is registration (with username and password), but that could discourage people from participating. Extending the time-out on CAPTCHA expiration to several hours would be wonderful, though. Too many of us (particularly newcomers) have lost potential postings to expired CAPTCHAs.
And finally, I greatly appreciate the fact that we can include links to other websites in our postings. Many blogging sites don’t allow this, for fear of somebody posting a URL that points to a spyware-infecting website. At the RoundTable, though, we’ve developed a “community expectation” that arguments will be backed by data. This substantially increases the quality of the discussions here and reduces the likelihood of things devolving into emotional and fact-free shouting matches.