Back to web version
READERS’ REPRESENTATIVE: Anonymous online comments spoil civil discourse
“I can’t believe the horrible and hateful things people are posting,” one typical caller said. “It makes me so angry that I have a hard time controlling myself.”
A very thoughtful e-mailer noted, correctly, that user comments on a recent story about the Roeland Park City Council “verged on outright slander. I wonder if the anonymous authors would engage in the same low level of mayor and council member bashing if they were required to state their identity.”
I think the answer to that quandary is clearly a no. Something deep in the human psyche prompts many people to behave offensively behind the cover of anonymity — the online equivalent of a bathroom stall. Unfortunately, a quick perusal of user forums all over the Web proves that intelligent discussion is nearly always marred by ugly misbehavior. Ironically, the bad actors’ nastiness reflects poorly on the viewpoints they are so passionate about.
I’m also convinced that a good number of the most offensive comments come from people pretending to espouse the views of their political opponents. This is a strategy I first heard about in the 2000 presidential elections, promoted by activists like techno musician Moby, who urged people to cause trouble online while masquerading as supporters of George W. Bush.
Hence, vicious posts I’ve seen from posters using the names “Liberal” or “Minuteman fan,” espousing clearly ridiculous, caricatured viewpoints on the Frances Semler debate.
The solution? Readers offer lots of suggestions. Many think every comment should have to be approved by a moderator. There is currently a link on every post to report it as a violation of the site’s terms of service. Web editors do review hundreds, and they delete a small percentage.
But newspapers are in the First Amendment business, and are rightly loath to draconian moderation. As offensive as free speech can be, it’s a bedrock concept of the nation.
Other readers think KansasCity.com should introduce a way to use its five-star comment-ranking system to push higher-rated remarks to the top of the queue — an idea implemented with success at some other sites. The software The Star currently uses doesn’t have this feature, but it would make for a good wish-list item.
Still others think the boards should be eliminated completely. “Being associated with this type of nonsense demeans The Kansas City Star and her readers,” wrote one.
I know it can be difficult to peruse the comments, as some topics — illegal immigration and the Iraq war are two particular flash points — draw almost unbelievable vitriol. It’s all but impossible to resist a peppery rebuttal.
The best solution is simply to make the boards a better place by replacing the nonsense with your own calm, reasoned exchanges. The bullies only win when you take their bait.