the comments problem

[cellio]

"Don't read the comments" -- common, often-correct advice when browsing the Internet. But comments are important, if you want to build community instead of just publishing stuff.

The Guardian looked at trends in the 70 million comments they've received. Not too surprisingly, articles posted by identifiable women get more abusive comments than those posted by men -- except in the fashion category. About 2% of the comments they get are blocked by moderators as way over the line; I'm surprised it's not rather higher, actually.

People who find themselves abused online are often told to ignore it – it’s only words; it isn’t real life. But in extreme cases, that distinction breaks down completely, such as when a person is doxed, or SWATed, when nude photos are posted of the person without consent, or when a stalker assumes the person’s identity on an online dating site and a string of all-too-real men appear at their door expecting sex. As one woman who had this experience said: “Virtual reality can become reality, and it ruins your life.”

But in addition to the psychological and professional harm online abuse and harassment can cause to individuals, there are social harms, too. Recent research by the Pew Centre found that not only had 40% of adults experienced harassment online but 73% had witnessed others being harassed. This must surely have a chilling effect, silencing people who might otherwise contribute to public debates – particularly women, LGBT people and people from racial or religious minorities, who see others like themselves being racially and sexually abused.

Is that the kind of culture we want to live in?

Is that the web we want?

They talk about their research methods.

Comments

[harvey-rrit.livejournal.com]

It's not the web I want.

It's still better than a web where there's an enforced speech code.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Agreed, strenuously.

[cellio]

Depends on who's enforcing what. I certainly don't want a government or consortium of ISPs or the like issuing edicts about what may or may not be said online; we get quite enough meddling of that sort already. However, I think the owner of an establishment is entitled to say "you can't do that here", whether we're talking about the Guardian's web site, an individual's blog or journal, or a moderated forum or Q&A site. A privately-owned brick-and-mortar establishment has the analogous right (so long as doesn't run afoul of discrimination laws); why shouldn't an online one?

I have only ever deleted two or three non-spam comments posted on my journal, but I reserve the right to do so. The ones I deleted were abusive personal attacks and are not welcome here. Nearly everything I post is public and open for comments, but this is still my space and I don't grant trolls residency privileges.

[harvey-rrit.livejournal.com]

I apologize for the implication. I misunderstood your import and drew a conclusion despite our past exchanges, and I don't know why; certainly I had no business being triggered by the thought of prior restraint, because you never proposed it.

Again, I'm sorry.

[cellio]

Thank you. You might have thought that the Guardian is proposing that, but if you read the article it should be clear that they're not saying "regulate this" but, rather, "we need to behave better".