Make like a Tree and Don’t Leave Comments
by Marie Barnes ~ December 19th, 2008. Filed under: Misc, Opinion.
Engadget recently wrote a post unobstrusively called “A note on comments” Don’t worry, the content of the note is just a tad more interesting. Engadget notified it’s readers that it had turned off comments on a recent post because the commenters were being “rude, disrespectful, reactionary jerks.” Engadget blogger Joshua Topolsky heavy-handedly reminded readers that they in no way own the site and that if said comments were to continue, the site would shut off the ability to comment, for good.
This brings about a question the internet community has long unthinkingly intuited: Does the internet community have the right to discuss at its point of origin every information/opinion/idea posted on the internet? Is it an un-written law?
The glory of the internet has always been in how untamed it is. Our televisions, radios, news are self-censored and self-contained. Room for feedback: practically null. How can one seperate information gleaned from these sources as misrepresented or incomplete as compared to that diamond-in-the-rough, a well-informed piece?
On the internet as soon as something is posted, a million voices respond. Some in well-written paragraphs, others in teh 1337, but everyone who wants a say, gets one. People agree, disagree, point out flaws, provide new links. Anything posted on the internet is a springboard for discussion, not a caged idea. The end to a post comes only when the internet collectively decides it is no longer interested.
As anyone reading this already knows, the internet, from blogging to just being a frequent forum poster, is not a place for the sensitive. It is not kind to hurt feelings. The anonymity one gains and the facelessness of one’s peers can sometimes reduce their importance in your mind to that of the Fable II NPC you threw a vulgar thrust at earlier in the day.
The effects of allowing comments are far-reaching. It can create a community whereas before catching up on the news was a solitary experience. Readers have begun to tie in their ability to comment with their beliefs in a company’s friendliness. A recent post by Kotaku gives as sole basis for their claim that “Square-Enix does not care what you think” the fact that comments were disabled on the official youtube (remember the days when that would be an oxymoron?) trailer of Star Ocean 4.
Is the spirit of the internet lost when the readers’ ability to become a part of it is taken away? We’re not talking about banning a single troll here. We’re talking about pulling the lever of that screeching, bellowing machine down to the off position. Is that the price of teaching that naughty internet some manners?
Oh, and please feel free to comment.
December 19th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Interesting post Marie!
As someone who has had to wad into innumerable e-arguments and start deleting comments by the dozes, I kind of think that letting conversations proceed or not is kind of up to the host of the discussion.
We always put it like this at Joystiq: The site is our house, and if someone came into your house and doodied on the floor, you’d throw them out. I’d imagine if enough people were doing that simultaneously, you’d eventually just cancel the party all together.
December 19th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I think it’s really down to the owner/runner of the website involved. As you say, the internet is a free and untamed place. For this very reason, there’s no reason that the people involved who feel negatively affected by Topolsky’s decision can’t go off and form their own website (or Facebook group!) where they can discuss whatever they please however they please. Whilst on Engadget, I’m with Justin and think it should be a case of ‘if you’re under my roof, you’ll live by my rules’.
Except when we discuss Star Wars/Star Trek fights and all the comments get deleted.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Popular websites rise and fall on the whims of their communities – conversation is an integral part of the business model. People keep coming back to their favorite site to see what the community on that particular site is saying about the news of the day. Make no mistake – you can get the news any number of places. Getting it from a site with an active community of commenters is often incentive enough to create a level of loyalty among readers.
Engadget has a very active community of regular commenters, and that community keeps people coming back to them instead of getting their news from, let’s say, Gizmodo (the same thing could be said about Giz actually).
All that being said, a certain level of “pruning” is absolutely necessary. If a particular comment is offensive in an over-the-top sort of way,it should be removed. If a particular commenter is too unruely, they should be banned. A good community only thrives if people aren’t put off by other commenters. If a commenter on a particular site is allowed to go around spouting off racial slurs without repercussions, other members of that particular community will see that, and associate the experience of reading offensive comments with the site they appear on.
In the end, no, Engadget shouldn’t disable comments all together, they just need to keep an eye on what’s going on in their comments.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am
It’s nice to see some of my thoughts already added to the comments. Each site will gain/lose readership based on their choices; they can do what they want.
However, I don’t think the majority of Joystiq readers go there because it has an active commenting community. It’s an assumption, but I’m guessing many people like myself go to a certain news site to read the news from those select writers or because it’s the best damn organized gaming news site there is. The only reason I comment here is because I feel like I know the people involved and it’s still fairly close-knit/small.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
The websites where I enjoy reading comments (Metafilter is probably the best) do moderate, but their moderation policy is liberal, clear and well-enforced. In the world of unmoderated comments, you end up with Youtube and spam. On the over-moderated side, I’d say BoingBoing goes too far in stifling criticism of its writers and in being capricious in how it applies its rules. BoingBoing’s sister site IO9 was (at least at launch) requiring people to apply to be a commenter with writing samples to apparently determine if they were good enough, which I find revolting and counter to the democratic spirit of the internet.
To the point of your article though, Engadget is a hugely successful website that makes a ton of money and they can easily afford the manpower and technology required to moderate their comments. This ‘play nice or we’ll shut it off’ just comes across as petulant and naive. It reminds me of the kid in school who would warn you about how mad they’ll get if you touch their lunchbox.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am
My reply to this is yes, I think you all have good points and I find it hard to disagree with any of them. However, in this particular instance, the comments were turned off because people were criticizing the stance that Engadget took. And it was a lot of people. Engadget could learn from it or at least recognize the difference of opinion, methinks, rather than say that anyone who disagrees doesn’t have a say.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I just read all the comments on the Engadget post on the BB Storm. It’s biased and apparently it isn’t the first one against BB Storm, and the comments were calling the website out on it. None of it seemed all that vulgar or insulting, aka not like youtube. I see no reason that those kind of posts should be restricted, or threatened to be shutdown completely. There was one poster that was really just trolling there (uzikrotch, he only made 2 comments in that post only, that was hard to spot), the rest, to me, came off more as Engadget not wanting to be criticized for being biased and less of it being vulgar and inapropriate. Snip that one troll and move on Engadget, people are going to be critical of your posts.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Also, forgot to mention that the user revolt at Digg seems relevant here — some time ago a story made it to the Digg front page that revealed the numeric string needed to break Blu-Ray encryption. Digg got a takedown notice from the industry and their users went batsh*t crazy, flooding the site with stories containing the prohibited string until they relented. It sounds like Engadget is in a similar situation; they have called more attention to themselves by overreacting.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:51 am
I say if you’re worried about certain kinds of posts, make guidelines and punish those who do not follow those guidelines (but I would be against this course of action too). Delete spam. I for one am against most rules and regulations regarding free speech in any public forum. I think many posts are disrespectful, but I don’t think they should be censored. Censorship in my field of study (library sciences) is a huge issue, and I think if we don’t censor public libraries for adults there is no reason for anyone to censor a blog or forum.
December 25th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
First!
January 14th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
[...] Most Forgotten Game Of 2008? Make like a Tree and Don’t Leave Comments MC Herbal-T Vs. Soulja [...]
February 10th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
That was a great blog. Most blogs are not even worth reading.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 am
????? ?????????? ??? ????! ?????????? ?? rss. ???? ????????? ??????.