Anonymity and the net: it’s what you say that counts

rufus says:

08:12am | 22/07/09

A few trolls are not that big a deal and can provide a diversion from the humdrum of numerous posts saying much the same thing. Most blogs are moderated to keep out extreme stuff, so what’s the problem? The problems I see are in blogs where the moderator blocks posters who inconveniently disagree with him even if their words are fit for publication.  I certainly wouldn’t bother with a site that required registration.

T.C. says:

09:35am | 22/07/09

Sometime trolls aren’t using their anonymity to be contradictory or to bully. They could be calling out a BS artist, a scammer or a fraud, without fear of retaliation.

Patrick says:

12:24pm | 22/07/09

A system like Youtube’s works fairly well. First, giving a shitstirers comment a thumbs down and seeing that a dozen or so other people have done the same is satisfying enough, and default settings mean most people won’t see these comments unless they choose to do so and adjust their settings.

Secondly, you don’t have total anonymity, you must make an account before you are able to comment on anything, and if you are a troll or a shit stirer, your online name eventually becoemsk nown as one of these. I think it’s a good idea for news and blog sites and whatnot to require somebody to make an account before they can comment, to prevent people starting up flame wars posting under revolving alias’s with fake email adresses

Helen says:

02:11pm | 22/07/09

You are surely joking. YouTube as a paradigm for comment moderation? YouTube is famous as a sewer of poorly moderated misogyny, racism and hate speech, not to mention foul and/or illiterate offerings.

Since it is impossible to codify the subtle rules against which a comment should be judged, this solution can lead to blanket censorship and an abuse of power by the moderator

It might be an advantage, before writing an article like this, to do some actual research into what moderators do on other group blogs. Most blogs with a commentariat of any size will have a comment policy page which is clearly linked on the front page, with simple rules, such as no personal attacks, no comments longer than three paragraphs or whatever the moderator deems appropriate.

To say that moderation of commenters equals “blanket censorship” is a common furphy (beloved of the trolls themselves). In fact, my blog, whether it is a group or personal blog, is a space managed by us/me. I have no obligation to publish your view on it if I find it offensive, misogynist, racist or what have you. This is not censorship. In five minutes the objectionable commenter can have gone across to Blogger or Livejournal and created a blog for him/herself to spout her hate speech or rudeness there. Refusal to publish someone else’s views does not equal censorship.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden of the famous group blog Making Light has just republished a series of useful posts on moderation and moderation policy. Have a google and check it out.

iansand says:

03:09pm | 22/07/09

“Troll”, in common Internet usage, is a word that means “I disagree with what you say, but do not have the wit to know why”.

Botkins says:

03:30pm | 22/07/09

To “troll”, in the internet sense, is actually to use an advanced form of irony.

By spouting a wildly untenable position parallels can often be drawn to the intended position of the poster. Often these “trolling” posts will involve foul language or personal attacks however these are a means to an end rather than any vitriol deliberately aimed at any individual.

Many trolls feel that to not have the general population realise you are trolling is to “win”, however there IS a fine a line between insightful trolling and being an everyday internet douche bag.

Forums of some sort exist at all points along a continuum, if you do not like the values of a particular forum or the moderator simply find another one.

I give this article a 3/10 on the Flesch international internet trolling scale.

Scott Douglas says:

04:41pm | 22/07/09

Thanks for your input.

Actually, it was my intent to comment on larger public forums, as opposed to forums in general, or smaller private web spaces. I think some of this objective was lost in translation when the piece was fed through the editorial process. However, this was fair enough, as the piece did contain a pro-The Punch statement or two.

The following sentence was removed from the introduction:

“The popularity of The Punch is testimony to the want of a public forum for debate and commentary.”

I trust this addition will clear up some of the confusion.

Cheers

Mel says:

07:19pm | 22/07/09

I agree Scott - we need to maintain healthy forums.

Pre-registration would still allow for the option of anonymity (and therefore continue the generation of discussion without the fear of reprisal) whilst still significantly curbing the incidence of “trolling”.

David says:

08:49pm | 22/07/09

Helen, refusing to publish other views is not censorship - it’s bias. Power to the moderator.

Helen says:

08:42am | 23/07/09

It’s perfectly possible to publish other views while deleting or disemvowelling hate speech, rudeness, personal attacks, long chunks of cut and pasted secondhand stuff, etcetera. It just needs a clearly articulated policy, like chairing a meeting.

But this requires work. In the mainstream media, where we don’t even have subeditors correcting spelling any more, whether they’d be willing to pay someone to properly moderate a discussion forum is questionable.