If you had told someone 50 years ago that anyone could have the capability to communicate instantaneously with someone else regardless of distance, they would have likely laughed at the very idea. But thanks to modern technology, this dream has become a reality. However, this gift of unparalleled public discourse has also repeatedly been shown to have consequences.
Now if, say, there’s an election coming up or a new iPhone is revealed, anyone with an internet connection can comment on news sites or message boards and give their opinion on the subject. This can lead to some extremely insightful and engaging conversations, but due to the anonymity that most sites allow, “discussions” just devolve into petty name-callings and outright bullying.
It’s this situation that the news agency Reuters recently acted against, resulted in them banning online comments entirely. The choice, as explained by executive editor Dan Colarusso, was executed because “much of the well-informed and articulate discussions around news … has moved to social media and online forums.”
On Jan. 22, the Las Vegas Review-Journal shut off their message boards as well, citing that “the same platform that provides an opportunity for civil dialogue and an exchange of ideas also provides a platform for racism, bigotry and hatred.”
Going back to Sept. 2013, Popular Science shut down their own comment sections as well, giving similar reasons as other publications. However, Popular Science also went on to blame Internet open forums that attract trolls as having been responsible for eroding public belief in science like climate change, vaccines, and evolution. When the publication allows anyone to comment on their stories, “scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to ‘debate,’” Popular Science online director Suzanne LaBarre said.
The tone of comments can also have a drastic impact on reader’s impressions on certain subjects. In a study done by The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, participants read a fake science article regarding the costs and benefits of so-called “nanosilver,” followed by various fake comments on the subject. Approximately one half of the participants read very civil, polite and contained comments whereas the other half read angry, hyperbolic comments such as “If you don’t see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kind of products, you’re an idiot.”
The results exemplified the drawbacks of unmonitored message forums. The result of participants reading the uncivil comments were polarized views on the subject and often changes the reader’s interpretation of the entire story.
These are not good prospects for a society like ours plagued by news organizations stuck in an “us versus them” mentality.
Websites don’t need to have unrestricted comment sections, especially since they’re not legally obliged to allow speech for others. They can either eliminate comment sections entirely or revamp them smartly. To do the latter, administrators can impose an upvote and downvote policy, similar to what the website reddit has. What this means is that individual users can determine whether a comment has value or not, resulting (ideally) in only the most level-headed, factual comments being noticeable.
There’s no perfect solution to this issue; trolls will continue to be trolls regardless of commenting restrictions. However, it’s hopeful that someday, Internet forums will be populated mainly by civil, unpolarized opinions and that the comment cesspools of today will be gone. It’s unlikely but then again, the only solution may end up being to eliminate them entirely, making online news discussions a privilege, not a right.
