Daily Dot Latest To 'Keep Conversation Moving Forward' By Not Letting Site Visitors Comment At All
from the muted dept
There’s a raging trend afoot for websites to shutter their news comment sections, then insisting that they’re doing this because they care so much about conversation on the Internet. A steady parade of websites have now stopped letting site visitors give public feedback, almost-proudly informing these muted site communities that this was done for the greater good of mankind. Really, companies just don’t want to spend the time or money to weed the troll garden (or may not like having their writers publicly fact checked on site), and are shoving these communities toward social media to bury the “problem” permanently.
The name of the game is about being cheap and lazy without looking like you’re being cheap and lazy, and the justifications being flung about by editorial staffs are equal part absurd and fascinating. Popular Science, for example, declared that on site discussion of news articles is “bad for science.” The Verge recently decided to shutter news story comments to help “build relationships.” Bloomberg recently killed news comments and insisted it wasn’t a big deal because, hey, most people can’t be bothered to comment and therefore news comments “don’t represent our readership.”
Few of these sites seem particularly concerned about the fact that shuttering comments makes it very clear they don’t really value truly local community, and lack the willpower to nurture and protect on-site (or in app) participation. Nor do they seem to realize that data has shown that toxic comment sections can often be dramatically improved simply by engaging a little with readers.
The Daily Dot is the latest to put comments “on infinite hiatus,” the site proclaiming it’s basically giving up after a few of the bigger troll flare ups of the last few years:
This trend is about more than just raw engagement. It?s also about what kind of engagement we want to have. We?re at an interesting point in the history of the Web. In the wake of Gamergate, Celebgate, and the Reddit Meltdown of 2015, both publishers and social networks are grappling with the same fundamental issue: how to foster engagement and dialogue without inadvertently feeding the trolls in the process.
The solution: don’t let anybody say anything publicly on your actual website. Ingenious! The site continues:
“The general consensus is that we need to detoxify the Web?to make it a cleaner, nicer, safer, and more inclusive place to live and work. Of course, at the Daily Dot, we would like to see a more civil, compassionate Web, but we want to be careful that in the name of fostering civility, we do not inadvertently kill all dissention.
The notion that you can somehow bring managed civility to the entire Internet seems like a fool’s errand. You can bring civility to your own comment section, but again that takes time, money and effort that it’s abundantly clear many websites aren’t willing to provide. So instead we get esoteric, disingenuous, incoherent musings on how being too lazy to engage with your own readership will somehow save the broader Internet from the menacing troll hordes. Like other sites, The Daily Dot proclaims that “hey, we’re still on social media” before dropping the now all-too-common line about how this is all about improving the conversation:
It?s a different route toward the same goal: to deliver the news to our readers, wherever they may live online, and to keep the conversation moving forward.
It’s like putting duct tape on the mouths of everybody in town because of two jackasses at the pub, then proudly patting yourself on the back for spearheading an amazing revolution in kindness and communication. Obviously sites are free to insult and ignore on-site communities as they see fit, but it would be a notable improvement if they could do it without the nauseating hyperbolic claims that they’re just trying to save the Internet from itself.
Filed Under: anonymity, comments, conversation, websites
Companies: daily dot
Comments on “Daily Dot Latest To 'Keep Conversation Moving Forward' By Not Letting Site Visitors Comment At All”
Inb4 troll complaining about the moderation here.
Re: Response to: observer on Aug 3rd, 2015 @ 12:46pm
Obligatory ‘GOOGLE SHILL’
All hecklers dream of ensuring that only their point of view is heard. Newspapers are little different, and can achieve the dream, at least on their own site
Re: Morans.
While ignoring all the other sites out here where people lambaste you for your arrogant belief that you’ve managed to quell the toxic discussion of your silly site policies and actions. Github, DailyDot, Verge, …
Do they seriously believe this is doing anything about trollish comments, or is this just to save money or something? I think it’s pretty obviously the latter.
The terrorists are winning the war! Either that or the fear of the terrorists, or the public who doesn’t believe whatever is spouted without some thought. You know, those who try to at least be a well informed populace.
Re: Re:
I used to read the DailyDot, they lost some of their punch and relevancy quick, and so did ars, but ars changed in a very very small way, the site couldnt even function without comments. Like here, if feedback is impossible other than through private email and you’re a so-called news site…but like I said, the DailyDot quickly turned into a Dot Com Monte Carlo driving with a tattoo paid for by mom and dad living in silicon valley information hub, so I can’t say much of value was lost.
Likely self-defense
It being the Daily Dot and all, I’m pretty sure it was done to cut down on the constant triggering of their oh so special snowflake filled staff.
Well, maybe they can...
… just add a “Letters to the Editor” page and respond to letters that are actually snail mailed to them… since they don’t post a viable “contact us” link for that pesky e-Mail traffic.
Ah… another trip back to the “good old days”.
When will these folks learn that the world has moved on and “mass-comm” is now a two-way dialogue?
Any discussion is better than none
I’ve seen several sites require Facebook logins for their discussion board. Guess what: not everybody has a Facebook login! So why don’t these sites that don’t want to put forth an effort use a 3rd party discussion board like Disqus? Is it still that much work they don’t want to do?
Re: Any discussion is better than none
Disqus isnt too bad, you gotta let it through ghostery though, or disconnect, i use both, which is possible, although one has to install Disconnect first.
You can write random crap as your info and once you’re logged in, it cannot follow you around sites using discuss if you use the extension auto-destructing cookies, I have to relog on disqus…but really I only use it for one site, AVclub, to speak about tv series because movies are totally shit compared to how unreal great tv series can be these days (which is a complete reversal). And if people being aware of the MAFIAA being a small percentage of it (they can create dumber, made with more graphics and less dialogue!). Not really a fan of more than 4 tv shows in the last 10 years though, its just that the good ones, are eclipsing everything away.
I agree that stopping dialogue in order to “keep the conversation moving forward” makes no sense. But I don’t have any sense of outrage at comments being turned off by individual sites despite their wacky justifications. If commenting is actually so valuable then the sites which have it will succeed. It’s just like setting up a pay-wall for your content. if it REALLY makes a big difference than everyone will just turn comments on again in a few months, assuming their site is still around.
Re: Re:
I’m not outraged. I just stop going to those sites.
*plugs fingers into ears*
NAHNAHNAH! I CAN’T HEAR YOU OVER HOW AWESOME I AM!
NAHNAHNAH!
A Sense of Strategy
Yes, but you seem to be taking this from the attitude that every Web site should have comments.
Having a participatory community needs to be a strategic decision. It requires investment, and therefore it needs to make sense to make that investment.
The problem is that too many sites added comments because “it’s what all the cool kids are doing”, without any strategic sense for why they have the comments. It was a checkbox on the VC funding form, for example.
So, for many of these sites, I would argue that their decision is simply a reversion to what they should have done from the outset, given their organizational priorities. And, in many cases, it will be better that they do drop the comments, as if they are not going to make the necessary investments in engagement, those comments can easily turn into a cesspool, which reflects poorly on the organization. IOW, do it right or don’t do it at all.
The highfalutin’ PR fodder for why they are taking down the comments is tripe, but PR fodder is generally tripe. It may be worthy of ridicule, but it is hardly newsworthy.
Re: A Sense of Strategy
“Yes, but you seem to be taking this from the attitude that every Web site should have comments.”
I disagree, I think the criticism here is aimed squarely at the lame and disingenuous claims of improving the community by killing comments. I don’t see anything above saying websites must have commenting.
Re: A Sense of Strategy
“Having a participatory community needs to be a strategic decision. It requires investment, and therefore it needs to make sense to make that investment.”
This one sentence summarizes much of what is wrong with having so much of the web commercialized.
Live by the trolls, die by the trolls
With sites like Daily Dot, they start the trolling with click bait headlines and low-quality content. Then they wonder why commenters like to fact check them or point out the BS. So the ball starts rolling. They’ll find that, without the trolls, and your garbage has to stand alone, there will be no traffic.
It’s a similar situation with Reddit, they ran a money-making site on the backs of volunteers, and then the entire web lost the plot when the volunteers mutinied, since there was this general feeling of lost control over the web (like it was their’s to begin with). Yes, they’re trolls, but if they let you pay the bills, you’re stuck with them.
Meh, it’s ok. It’s not like there’s any shortage of ways for people to voice an opinion online.
It’s about the protection of the feels.
It’s all for the greater good , our readers have no need to comment on our articles , most of them are idiots and share a braincell between them , we are now providing a safe haven for all of our readers ,now shut up …and listen
Re: Re:
and believe!
You know, it’d be nice if one of these sites would come out and say they’re doing this because their “community” turned out to be full of shit-stirrers and dickheads and the site owners are sick of their bullshit. I remember the Guardian publishing an editorial to that effect when they dropped their initial hands-off approach to Comment Is Free and started moderating it rather strictly.
Re: Re:
The Guardian and now, The Intercept, have banned me (or in the case of the Guardian – one year of we’ll look before we post) for questioning the motives of reporters. Many sites don’t like it when you name their names. They suck.
Re: Re: Re:
The Guardian lets me get away with just about anything except really, really dry sarcasm… which is weird, as I assumed recognizing ironic wordplay would be one of their fortes.
The Intercept’s moderation, however, would seem to be done entirely by the DISCERN project’s schizophrenic neural network.
(http://news.utexas.edu/2011/05/05/schizophrenia_discern)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sarcasm doesn’t always come over well in text, especially for some harrassed intern the Grauniad have moderating several threads at once.
Conversations go much more smoothly when nobody is allowed to talk.
Same stuff, different day
the Federal Government has not been listening for years, so why not??
( I come here just because I do NOT have to log in for comments, It’s like a rain of sunshine after a week of rain clouds ) 🙂 ( and I always use the same name )
“(or may not like having their writers publicly fact checked on site)”
That is the biggest cause of my banning.
It’s like turning up to the movies, armed with popcorn, only to find the movie has been replaced with 60 minutes of adds.
They are idiots. All it takes to shut down a “troubling” commenter is to call him a troll/muhsoginist/racist/bigot/whatever is the current buzzword.
Or a double captcha. Noone bothers to solve that shit twice, noone commets.
The SJWs are getting their feelings hurt by their readers remaining intellectually independent instead of accepting their politically correct brainwashing. Better kill the comments so the message will be clearer and stronger. Independent thought will surely disappear now.
If you cut off your ears and gouge out your eyes you will never see or hear anything bad again
Popular Science Link Effectively Dead
FYI, that link to Popular Science’s explanation for why they are no longer accepting comments no longer seems to work! A search with Google still finds the page, but if you try to go there you get redirected back to “http://www.popsci.com”.
For those who do still want to read what Popular Science had to say, archive.org’s Wayback Machine has an archived copy at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150718155339/http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments
“we’ll be looking to bring back commenting at some point in the future, most likely through Facebook integration”
Oh God, I give up. Just stop the world I wanna get off.
People aren’t going to go where they feel their voice can;t be heard. These places are losing traffic.
But what do you expect from a growing number of online news outlets that can;t stand hearing people criticize them for their political soapboxing?
They do care about conversation… well at least they care about taking the conversation elsewhere.
Although TBH comment sections on news sites are mostly deserted outside of news on politics and/or sex scandals. And that’s when the trolls come out of the woodwork.
Also, paper newspapers didn’t allow you to comment on articles so why should online newspapers. Let’s not forget that corps just want “the same thing, but on a computer”.
Defeating trolls has and will always have the same solution;
Stay anonymous and don’t feed the trolls.
The media has been people it’s “cowardly” to be anonymous on the internet. Which is like saying it is cowardly to lock your door. Simultaneously, the media has been feeding the trolls, constantly with attention. Teaching people that dancing to the trolls tune is what you ought to do.
This has led to an entire generation of people who expose themselves to more trolling and then spur the trolls onward.
This situation has two solutions, de-anonymize the internet and then spend untold billions on moderation apparatus that will probably fail to shift through the exabytes(billion gigabytes) of data now produced monthly on the internet, to find the bad behaviour in it.
Or go back to keeping your personal details safe, only releasing them to Facebook or the like. Though you probably shouldn’t do that either.
So they pulled a Sarkeesian on us... hahaha ROFL
In hindsight this is just the natural course of events:
I mean… dedicating an entire section (read temper tantrum) to what they -and only they- called ‘The Reddit Meltdown’ O.O
Feminazi after feminazi propaganda and disinformation campaigns…
And now the final touch: stick the head in the sand “lalalala can’t hear nofin!!” hahahahaha this is too adorable!!
So long Daily dot, as a long time visitor to your site (circa 2012 onwards), it is with not little sadness I say ‘Fare well’ I’ll always remember when you used to be an interesting/fun forum to hang around with.
Not any more I’m afraid.
*goes to DailyDot bookmark’s favicon* > Right click > delete
No Comment
Vox has been promising comments since its start up, but they don’t really want to jeopardize the shine they’ve got on that turd.
Possible Response
Someone could create a web site with comment sections for each of the other web sites that dropped their own comment sections. It would be a comments are us answer to what is happening. Maybe this already exists and I just don’t know about it.
Re: Possible Response
It does exist. It’s called Facebook. And it sucks.