Commenting on Commentary

Social media is based on turning communication into a conversation. Everywhere you turn, you are asked to join the conversation and sometimes – that can be a very welcoming and enlightening place. Sometimes, it can be very angry and toxic. In my college writing course, I ask my students to write about commenting and the way conversations can shift and change online. We are constantly being asked to “like” something on Facebook or log into a website to voice our opinion. But what happens when you get there and you don’t like the tone of the conversation?

Maybe we should eliminate anonymous comments. If comments and conversations go sour when people hide behind their pseudonym, should the anonymous voice be stifled? In my class, I ask the students if they would voice the same opinion online to that of speaking face-to-face? The answer is clearly no. The conclusion is that sitting behind a computer changes what people say. And the next point is: which conversation is more truthful and beneficial?

It isn’t that clear. Just attaching a name to a comment doesn’t change the conversation. In fact, most websites that use comments requires users to register with their email and name before they comment. They may have a pseudonym attached to their comments, but the organization knows who you are. It's more than putting a name to a comment – it's more complex.

Executive editor of Grist, Scott Rosenberg suggests that it's more than masking a name.  “The great mistake so many newspapers and media outlets made was to turn on the comments software and then walk out of the room.” He suggests that proper moderation foster healthy debate and conversation.  He suggests in the article Newspaper Comments: Forget anonymity! The problem is management that when the posted comments are toxic, it might be easier to shut down the commenting and begin anew with proper moderation and examples of appropriate conversations.

For years online media thought of commenting as a tech attachment. Now, everyone sounds off with comments and other modes of immediate expression. So, it is clear that many media outlets are not moderating and policing constructive comment forums. Rosenberg points out the fact that commenting elements in media outlets aren’t new anymore, we've been seeing this develop for more than ten years. And yet, the web is full toxic and inappropriate conversation happening all the time.

Let’s face it -  the culture online is to spout off something from behind the computer that you wouldn’t say in a public meeting or coffee house if you were meeting face-to-face with them. So, what is the value of anonymity? If we did away with it, wouldn’t things be better?

Well, anonymity still has a purpose and a lengthy historical background. Jillian York and Trevor Timm discuss this concept in On Newspapers, Public Discourse, and the Right to Remain Anonymous. They discuss how media outlets have banned the anonymous commenting for the sake of online “civility”. But they make the counter point that “identification brings about a greater sense of safety for some, for others, it present a great risk. Think, for example, of victims of domestic abuse, whose online safety is predicated on not revealing their identity or location. Or a small-town schoolteacher who fears revealing her political views to her local community but seeks solidarity online.” There voices are stifled and lost if we don’t give them a place to speak and share their experiences.

So, what is the solution? Where do we go to achieve online civil discourse? It seems that part of the solution is moderation by the media outlets, otherwise commenting becomes nasty. Scott Rosenberg aptly points out, “If you opened a public cafe or a bar in the downtown of a city, failed to staff it, and left it untended for months on end, would you be surprised if it ended up as a rat-infested hellhole?” So, having a fair and judicious moderator might be part of that solution. And to suggest that people hiding behind anonymity don't deserve a voice bucks hundreds of years of historical precedence.  As mentioned in the article - the Federalist Papers were penned under a pseudonym.  

As I read comments and see postings from local news outlets to national and international affiliates, I am optimistic that so many people are participating in the discussions and issues of the world. Yet, I am always wondering where the honest and most constructive commentary is happening. Is it the raw harsh truth, or is it sequestered some place on password protected websites? And while I have to sift through a lot of digression and confusion, somewhere in the anger, personal agendas, texting language, and frustration - there is our thread of civil discourse, freedom of speech, the voice of the voiceless that needs to be amplified above the din of the crowd.

I would like your feedback and comments, come what may.