Personally, I have witnessed a national paper go from lively readers comments to vicious personal attacks and what we call trolling.
That paper stopped all comments a week ago. Within last three years it seems most internet comment sections/forums are following in lock step with this trend.
Now--the Washington Post is reporting (By David Lat April 21 David Lat is the founder and managing editor of Above the Law eliminated comments).
So--the cost--of no comments-is the absence of a "peoples" internet to a pedestrian and one sided commercial form of communication. In fact, most young people use computer to chat with friends the rest of the mess is just that a mess of special commercial interests.
_____________________________________________________________
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...king-the-internet-worse-so-i-got-rid-of-them/
Excerpts
"Over the years, however, our comments changed. They had always been edgy, but the ratio of offensive to substantive shifted in favor of the offensive. Inside information about law firms and schools gave way to inside jokes among the “commentariat,” relevant knowledge got supplanted by non sequiturs, and basic civility (with a touch of political incorrectness) succumbed to abuse and insult. A female Supreme Court justice was called a “bull-dyke.” An Asian American woman’s column about civility in the legal profession provoked “me love you long time” in response. My colleague Staci Zaretsky, who writes extensively about gender inequality in the legal profession, was told: “Staci, you have plenty of assets, like that fat milky white ass.”
So we decided to get rid of the comments section.
We’re not alone. In 2013, Popular Science shut off its comments. In 2014, Recode, Mic, the Week and Reuters closed down their comments sections. Other sites that have removed comments include Bloomberg and the Daily Beast. According to a 2014 study by journalism professor Arthur Santana, of the 137 largest U.S. newspapers, 49 percent did not allow anonymous comments and 9 percent had no comments at all. After the National Journal eliminated comments on most stories, its website traffic and levels of user engagement increased."
* * *
In part, our decision was based on science. Researchers have found that when readers are exposed to uncivil, negative comments at the end of articles, they trust the content of the pieces less. (Scientists dubbed this the “nasty effect.”) A study by the Atlantic found that negative comments accompanying a news article caused readers to hold the article in lower esteem. In an increasingly competitive media environment, websites can ill afford to have their content and brands tarnished in this way."
____________________________________________
As a long time member of AFN I and all can say--AFN has also had to react to trolls and bullies.
Fact--AFN is a great site but far from the days of amiability. Old members rarely if ever visit AFN. In fact--they are the ones that made AFN a family back in the days.
The author of article is founder of a forum!
Cheers
That paper stopped all comments a week ago. Within last three years it seems most internet comment sections/forums are following in lock step with this trend.
Now--the Washington Post is reporting (By David Lat April 21 David Lat is the founder and managing editor of Above the Law eliminated comments).
So--the cost--of no comments-is the absence of a "peoples" internet to a pedestrian and one sided commercial form of communication. In fact, most young people use computer to chat with friends the rest of the mess is just that a mess of special commercial interests.
_____________________________________________________________
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...king-the-internet-worse-so-i-got-rid-of-them/
Excerpts
"Over the years, however, our comments changed. They had always been edgy, but the ratio of offensive to substantive shifted in favor of the offensive. Inside information about law firms and schools gave way to inside jokes among the “commentariat,” relevant knowledge got supplanted by non sequiturs, and basic civility (with a touch of political incorrectness) succumbed to abuse and insult. A female Supreme Court justice was called a “bull-dyke.” An Asian American woman’s column about civility in the legal profession provoked “me love you long time” in response. My colleague Staci Zaretsky, who writes extensively about gender inequality in the legal profession, was told: “Staci, you have plenty of assets, like that fat milky white ass.”
So we decided to get rid of the comments section.
We’re not alone. In 2013, Popular Science shut off its comments. In 2014, Recode, Mic, the Week and Reuters closed down their comments sections. Other sites that have removed comments include Bloomberg and the Daily Beast. According to a 2014 study by journalism professor Arthur Santana, of the 137 largest U.S. newspapers, 49 percent did not allow anonymous comments and 9 percent had no comments at all. After the National Journal eliminated comments on most stories, its website traffic and levels of user engagement increased."
* * *
In part, our decision was based on science. Researchers have found that when readers are exposed to uncivil, negative comments at the end of articles, they trust the content of the pieces less. (Scientists dubbed this the “nasty effect.”) A study by the Atlantic found that negative comments accompanying a news article caused readers to hold the article in lower esteem. In an increasingly competitive media environment, websites can ill afford to have their content and brands tarnished in this way."
____________________________________________
As a long time member of AFN I and all can say--AFN has also had to react to trolls and bullies.
Fact--AFN is a great site but far from the days of amiability. Old members rarely if ever visit AFN. In fact--they are the ones that made AFN a family back in the days.
The author of article is founder of a forum!
Cheers
Last edited:
------and tis true!
