CivilBeat.org has put an end to comments.
In a recent column, Civil Beat Editor Patti Epler explained (“We’re Killing Comments — Here’s Why“).
Epler says they cycled through a number of software systems for handling comments, and none managed to solve the basic problem–comments just never managed to provide the civil and broad-based discussion CB hoped to generate.
It is not the virtual town square where broad segments of the community can discuss matters of importance to Hawaii and come to agreement on reasoned solutions. Nope. The same handful of people (sadly, I can name you off the top of my head) are dominating the comment threads on every single story.
And that’s squeezing out a lot of other people who might have interesting views to share if only they weren’t terrified of getting smacked down by the comment monsters. We regularly hear from these readers who write or call to talk about a story or an issue, but tell us they have no intention of being dragged through the cyber muck.
It turns out the “no comment” only applies to the main Civil Beat website.
“Commenters can continue to opine on our Facebook page and other social media platforms,” Epler said. “You can find us on Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube, too.”
I’ve thought several times that comments sometimes require too much time and attention when it’s necessary to rein in a particularly unpleasant, abusive, or personal comment thread. But, luckily, that’s only happened occasionally.
Your thoughts on Civil Beat’s decision?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A wimpy dereliction of duty for a non-profit media outlet. They should invest more in controlling the tyrants. It’s like mommy saying if you can’t play nicely, go to your room. Maybe a “time out” is warranted, but I hope they will find a solution better than this. There was often MUCH needed balance in perspective and corrected information in the comments. Could that be the real reason?
My experience is that it was rare to find “balance in perspective and corrected information” in the Civil Beat comments.
And I would like to hear the reasoning why Kari L. feels Civil Beat has a “duty” to publish comments , especially when they found that the comments section was serving as a “cyber muck” playground for a few regulars to engage in hostile exchanges. If someone can’t play nicely, why should we have to listen to them? Or why should Civil Beat have to provide a space for their abusive behavior?
We are lucky, that for the most part, comments on this blog usually do add perspective and useful corrections and have been relatively free of the trolls who have made many other comments sections unreadable. Thanks to all of you for keeping this one of the few places on the Web where you can have a civilized disagreement.
Aloha!
Lopaka43- From HCB’s About “Honolulu Civil Beat is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt news organization dedicated to cultivating an informed body of citizens, all striving to make Hawaii a better place to live. We achieve this through investigative and watchdog journalism, in-depth enterprise reporting, analysis and commentary that gives readers a broad view on issues of importance to our community…We believe news is a public asset and that Civil Beat can and should be a good community partner, not just an arms-length observer recounting news of the day. We have a stake in this community as much as it has a stake in us.” As a non-profit I think they are held to a higher standard, and their mission cant really be fulfilled without participation from the public. It’s true that they have other platforms like Facebook, and host FTF events.
There’s no reason for comments to be anonymous. As several have mentioned that is enabling the uncivility. It’s a pain, maybe, but they should allow comments and block abusers/trolls/bots.
I love your cybermuck playground description. Yeah, that does NOT need to happen.
Most of the comments on Civil Beat made Hawaii look like an archipelago of idiocy.
Yes. Frequently shockingly so. AND it was important for me to hear those disturbing voices once and awhile. Those voices belong to real people, possibly voters, so it’s good to know what’s out there, hard to address otherwise. It’s also important for those voice to express themselves safely somewhere. I don’t know where. I’d rather their energy be spent typing vitriol than acting it out, though.
Informative, safe, respectful discussions are essential to democracy. Hawaii needs them. But, I can understand CB’s challenge.
For 25 years I’ve been watching online discussions. We started off pretty well, but have devolved to a low point that just seems to get nastier. In the early days of ‘electropolis’ and the ‘laws of the wild west’ everyone was (mostly) careful about making online enemies – there were definitely dangerous forms of bachi! Now, making enemies seems to be the goal of almost everyone.
I’d advise Civil Beat to consider building a real community – and to study metafilter.com as a model. Mefi requires a small fee to be a ‘member’ (registering with a credit card). There is no real anonymity and there is a tradition of meet-ups (FTF). Most importantly, the community-led guidelines/changes/accountability creates a sense of ownership by members. (There is also a system of flagging posts/comments and paid moderators to help members) Metafilter hosts one of the most diverse, challenging, informative – and civil – discussion areas online.
Another online community model would be those created by Native Hawaiian groups. From what I’ve observed (especially concerning the Mauna Kea protectors) most people know each other face to face. I don’t think this was a requirement; it seems to have evolved that way. This is something unique to Hawaii – and significant. Generally, we in Hawaii want to ‘feel-know’ a person and their connections (‘where you grad’) when entering into online relationships. This practice of “building relationship” could be key to a healthy future for all online communities.
———
Of course … it is *possible* that eventually all people will treat strangers online the same way they treat them face to face … but I’m not holding my breath on that, lol.
The SA still allows comments. But I guess the difference is that since you have to be a subscriber to comment, being totally anonymous is out the window. At least someone will know exactly who you are if a threat is made or someone is getting personal. CB however is a freebie and with that comes the garbage comments you get when you take all comers.
I found it disappointing that Civil Beat cut the comments. Some subjects such as ISRAEL,,AIPAC influence on America’s Congress, including Hawaiis, Foreign Policy, obscene funding to ISRAEL seemed to be a taboo subject. So certainly a lack transparency on the part of Civil Beats Editor.
Taking advantage of semi-anonymity, people are free to post the most abusive and disgusting rants, not only on newspaper websites but on just about any website where they are free spew their nastiness. These people were out there long before the Internet took off. Except in those days they had to post their offensive screeds on the walls of public bathrooms and inside toilet stalls.
Exactly. A large proportion of the commenters have been trolls who have nothing better to do than regurgitate toxic disinformation. A non-anonymous forum for paid subscribers is an alternative that might work for promoting dialogue.
I’d rather read things from people who use their own name like Charley does.
Meaningful convos and engagement takes place on Twitter and Facebook. the sooner the S-A, Hawaii News Now and other local media outlets get rid of their comments sections, the better.
The one place (other than ILind.net, of course!) where I find comments to be helpful is the Washington Post. I generally sort comments by “most liked,” and can “ignore” the persistently offensive ones.
As a rule, this yields more thoughtful observations. I’ve learned a great deal of information this way.
Hey Ian and everyone else …
Thanks for this post, I’m interested to see what people are saying about the comments section or lack thereof. The vast majority of people who write drectly to us also were not sorry to see the section go away.
We have been looking at the paid comment idea, as a couple of the posters here suggest. But besides being a bit weird for our organization, which touts free access to the site by anyone who wants to read our stuff, I’m not sure it would solve our main problem. Which wasn’t only that the comments had become pretty nasty but was mainly that it was the same 10-20 people arguing with each other on every story. So I presume most of those people would gladly pay to play in a members-only type forum. But then it would just be them arguing among themselves again. What we really want is to find a way to engage a broader segment of readers and not have a handful of voices drown out everyone else.
I’d appreciate any thoughts on how to accomplish that!
— Patti Epler, Civil Beat Editor
The idea of sitting in a conference room brainstorming an idea where there are no stupid questions and nothing someone says leaves the room or is not permanently attached to them is not possible in an internet comment section or forum.
Anonymity can assist in creating that environment. However anonymity brings out people with too much time on their hands. People that are bored. Call in talk radio can limit repeat callers through screening. Can you do it in a comment forum?
If you relaunch in the future, you might limit a person to one topic per week. They can debate in the topic. But they can’t post in any other.
You could also encourage young people in the debate. A high school class could discuss a topic. They would be anonymous …. student#1 student#2 …. and so on. Only that group would be allowed to comment.
My other comment in this forum might have been a bit harsh on CB. I do believe you want to get it right.
Maybe limit the number of times a person can comment during a period of time? That alone would force some reflection on when and what they wanted to share. Just a thought!
Agree the Post comments are excellent but the SA’s are filled by people who love to argue with and insult each other. Rarely on topic.
For those of you who are interested in how Facebook is being used, try The Free Thought Project on that site. It’s frightening, apparently trolling for disillusioned Americans who can be turned into fanatics.
Our community is not ready for a free flowing marketplace of ideas and thoughts that are annonymous. If the ideas in the comment section were so bad, how come so few came forward to respond to them. If hundreds had participated, then bad ideas could be demoted down the discussion through a points system. Instead few participate. They don’t participate because it is easier to stay silent or they don’t care. Most of the ones that put their names on posts know their points are blessed. No fear posting the party line.
The next thing that could happen in a comment section that is void of participation is that a comment might have more sting than the story. If the comment is sitting by itself unchallenged, then the charity creating the site and the writers might not be happy. Outsiders complain too.
So rather than foster a more robust marketplace of ideas by promoting more participation. They just decided to kill it. It is all about controlling the narrative and our thoughts —- charity or not. Sorry to say, but it looks like CB can’t handle alternative views that may contain some truth but don’t fit their narrative. They would rather have that information lost then to have their views questioned. But such is their right. They rather not be tested. And without being tested, the Ideas look strong, but in many cases, they will be weaker.
Just like this blog. When you run an article on the Clinton opp research dossier, you don’t want to print a link in the comment section that goes to the conservative treehouse or what you consider a blog of the right. You don’t want your blog used for a debate that could end in a result that causes you dissonance. I would rather hear that debate or push that debate to see where it leads. And I am quite disappointed because I was educated by the left. And my greatest respect for the left was their fight for free flowing ideas. But the left is killing me now. They have lost my respect.
Some of the comments highlight the conundrum. While bemoaning the conduct of others, they display their own incivility.
I am in a very nasty and public lawsuit which has been commented upon with vigor in Civil Beat and elsewhere. After the initial shock, I have found all of the comments useful. Yes, all. We live in our bubbles and it’s painful but essential to hear and see that which challenges our views no matter how it is expressed.
I don’t believe facts and misinformation deserve equal time in the news. With no objective moderation, online comment sections are one of the major pathways for groundless conspiracy theories and other forms of misinformation to be spread, and it’s ruining this country.
Even without the comments, media is partially to blame by telling both sides of every story without pointing out that one side is often clearly false and deliberate propaganda, that has been designed very carefully for the specific purpose of perpetuating the misinformation. This has changed for the better in the last year or so, but it’s too little too late and the damage has has already been done.
I don’t know what the answer is in regards to online comments. It feels un-American to censor only certain voices. Therefore, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to shut the whole thing down when open discussion has become toxic beyond repair. But the end result of treating all views equally in this regard is just one more assault on truth. I don’t like that at all. I wouldn’t want to be a decision-maker at Civil Beat right now.
Cinda, thank you for bringing up two “behaviors” that seem to be strangling discussions online. I agree with the first point – about the “fair & balanced” myth – and also believe it is beginning to come unraveled. The second point – the, “but, freedom of speech!” cry from anyone who can’t or won’t accept community boundaries (i.e., no space for racists, etc.) – is one of the more insidious assaults on open discussions. It seems to be taking people off guard. One obvious response would be simply, “You can have all the freedom of speech you need – just as we have the freedom to not hear you/to block you/to eject you from the forum.”
The aim of people who resort to either of these disturbing behaviors in a discussion/forum is to grab attention, derail, distract and basically sabotage interactions. We would walk away from such boors in real life; why should we tolerate them online? I certainly don’t think we should allow this ‘toxicity’ to shut down conversations.
Perhaps this is just a period of adjustment – or just a call for each of us to be the ‘adult in the room”. Remember those key parenting/teacher phrases? “We don’t do that here.” “You need to take some time out” “No, that is not a choice” … ? At any rate, things won’t change until there is a critical mass of people who understand the dynamics of online discussions and are willing to take responsibility for helping “newbies” integrate in a civil, respectful, informative manner. I used to call the people who helped create a critical mass the “elders of the tribe”. They had infinite patience, but still held all to account (our “cyber-aunties”!)
BTW, this discussion is about one of the most important internet topics today.