The Verge Shuts Down News Comments To Help 'Build Relationships'
from the ill-communication dept
Oh, the poor, lowly comments section. These days, you can't turn a corner without the comment section being blamed for the death of civility, falling gold prices, and the general, entropic heat malaise of the universe. If you haven't noticed, there's a bit of a trend in the news industry afoot wherein you kill off the comment section, mindlessly shove your community over to Facebook if they want to comment, then proudly proclaim you're doing this not because you're too lazy or cheap to moderate, but because you're really just super passionate about improving online conversation. It's kind of a thing.The Verge seems to be the latest news outlet to join the trend, co-founder Nilay Patel informing readers this week that the website will be shutting down the site's comment section because the Internet has just gotten too kooky to concentrate. Like other comment section killers, The Verge rather proudly proclaims that this move is part of an effort to build better relationships:
"What we've found lately is that the tone of our comments (and some of our commenters) is getting a little too aggressive and negative — a change that feels like it started with GamerGate and has steadily gotten worse ever since. It's hard for us to do our best work in that environment, and it's even harder for our staff to hang out with our audience and build the relationships that led to us having a great community in the first place."Nothing quite says "building relationships" like removing the ability for your readers to publicly speak to you. Meanwhile, if you can't do your "best work" because a few obnoxious trolls can't stop pooping in your comment section, maybe don't read the comments until you're done working? As we noted when Reuters, ReCode, Vox and everybody else killed comments in the noble pursuit of high planes of communication, by closing comments down you're sending a clear message to your community and lifeblood that their input doesn't matter.
And as some (whoa, the irony) Verge commenters point out, killing comments (as is done at Verge sister site Vox.com) doesn't do much for the local flora and fauna, either:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comments, community, openness, relationships, the verge
Companies: vox
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I think it's due to the insightful and funny buttons and the weekly recap on the results. It promotes considered responses and recognises merit in the two categories while at the same time drawing eyes back to the original articles for the interested.
Genius.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'Community', right...
Nope, it's all about building a thriving community by eliminating it altogether, clearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Verge...
TBH, I stopped visiting that site ages ago due to such nonsense, and I don't foresee them maintaining readership levels by doing this, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comments and comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: comments and comments
But it would seem that poorer quality publications have a strong disincentive on comments because:
1) Their content attracts immature fools that turn the comment section into a cesspool.
2) Their content inspires people to attack them for being incorrect, misleading etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many of the sites that still have comments make them hard to find. They'll sandwich the Expand Comments button between advertising sections.
What happens when everyone abandons Facebook? What happens when thirty years down the road students are writing articles for a class about an event that occurs today and there's less material to work with because the comments are lost?
A lack of comments tells me that they want to return to the good old days of one-way information transmission newspapers where the only "comments" are staff-selected letters to the editor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now that journalism has slipped a few pegs by firing folks, these same places now want to run for cover. The circle has turned 360 and it now appears they want less involvement and less readers. Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you see? The worst things won't get said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yep, everyone uses their real name on Facebook, and they're always polite and don't say horrible things. Job done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has absolutely nothing to do with commentors calling out crap in the articles and pointing out where and when they get things wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has absolutely nothing to do with commentors calling out crap in the articles and pointing out where and when they get things wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, I got through for first time after a dozen attempts today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, I got through for first time after a dozen attempts today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, I got through for first time after a dozen attempts today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, I got through for first time after a dozen attempts today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gads, you're dense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Especially, why does it come up when shutting down comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
GamerGate shed light on the incestuous relationship between publishers and video game journalism. This screws with the gravy train and that couldn't be tolerated. Just look up 'GameJournoPros' to see the level collusion going on.
The problem here is that this obviously is not relegated to games journalism but journalism as a whole. In my opinion this fact is why Gamergate was vilified from the start. The whole harassment thing is a great way to put someone on the defensive and re-frame the conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, because the start of GamerGate was an online rant by a jealous ex-boyfriend that falsely implicated an unethical relationship between his game designer ex and a game journalist who had never reviewed one of her games. That makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Shits gonna hit the fan when the music lovers find out what the concert reviewers have been up to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like when CNN's journalists get 'embedded' with troops at the front and becomes a front for the Pentagon media machine.
Or when journalists become sock puppets for political factions in exchange for career-promoting 'access'.
The details of GamerGate per se did not matter. The issue it raised did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The people who listen to reviews and hype are guilty of promoting that type of journalism with their eyes and their ad clicks. If they want some kind of reform, misogynist rants and rape and death threats are not the way to go about it. Boycott the game media instead.
Journalists getting embedded with troops or repeating government propaganda as fact actually affect people's lives. Game journalism is a consumer issue for man-children who rely on groupthink and rumor to tell them what entertainment media to purchase. There's a significant difference there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Game journalism is taken seriously because people are interested. If you don't care, troll somewhere else.
You are building a big straw man.
Keep deflecting serious criticism with "misogynistic rants, rape and death threats". This is the reason GamerGate still is a thing. Everyone arguing against it uses these fallacious arguments ...
It really shows your character that you need to resort to name calling when talking about game enthusiasts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A question. How could anyone be surprised or offended that a field of journalism based around a multi billion dollar industry has kickbacks and freebies and junkets and drugs. That's the one part thats never made sense.
Boy gets his heart broken and spills it on the internet - makes sense (stupid, but makes sense). 4-chan hates girls -makes sense. (again, stupid).
But the "oh my god they're on the make, that's unethical", I could never buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who did this? Logically we could assume 'the other side', but this is false because there is absolutely no way to know who did what.
Your argument fails the test, and again you fail to recognize the issue at hand: ethics in journalism. The problem with attacking journalism's gravy train is that they control the narrative and have and will use that to their advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Adults reading the modern equivalent of Nintendo Power and throwing a fit over an overhyped and irrelevant issue is significantly different than the narratives controlled by the actual media. The real media sways votes and influences politics and perceptions of wars and welfare and poverty and crime.
The worst scenario with unethical game journalism is that you spent $80 on a pre-order because you believed what a reviewer said about the game instead of waiting to see what other gamers said about it after it was released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
DO YOU EVEN READ WHAT YOU ARE WRITING?
You are unable to discuss VALID IDEAS because of opposing viewpoints?
How much do you even know about GamerGate?
Do you understand how a hashtag works?
Have you ever been to the subreddit /r/KotakuInAction?
Are you aware of the Harassment Patrol, an initiative to combat harassment happening on the hashtag.
Are you aware that there is NO coordinated harassment by GamerGate, but rather a few idiots (often called trolls).
Are you aware that most harassment reported by the press is happening by "egg accounts" with literally NO CONNECTION TO GAMERGATE (the most prominent one would be the death threats against Brianna Wu by DeathToBrianna). But hey, GamerGate did it, we don't need proof.
But I like your way of thinking. This way I won't need to engage with feminists, because of #KillAllMen.
I can assure you that most are pretty self-aware and are able to discuss ideas not labels.
Please stop oppressing all those #transnigger out there...
But then again, I can see people incapable of discussing ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most of it was discussion about abuse, and dishing out abuse. It was a trolls' paradise.
You are saying: that is not what gamergate meant! The meaning is completely different, here let me explain. But that's not how it works, the meaning is given by those who use it and hear it. And the meaning you are trying to give gamergate is lost on the noise, your defense of it places you on the same side of the trolls, your "there vitims on the other side too" sound weak because everybody "knows" the biggest victims of gamergate were girls with public exposure and relationship to games. You lost the battle for the meaning of gamergate, an just as the nazis corrupted the swastika, #gamergate now means abuse, threats and the worst of the gaming world, disguised as "ethics in gaming journalism".
Leave it, learn the lesson, and next time, denounce the trolls that take your meaning and tranform it into something else. It isn't the first time a symbol represents somehting different from it's original meaning. And on gamergate, the "original meaning" is already corrupted, since it started as a rant with false accusations from an ex-boyfriend.
You just don't stand a chance trying to reclame such a hatefull event as something good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's some grade A ethical journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, good diversion from the actual topic at hand: ethics in journalism. Funny how you don't even acknowledge that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree, however, with the idea that they shutdown GamerGate discussions because it reflected poorly on them. GamerGate was a troll's paradise. It was an excuse to go apeshit with angry rants on topics completely unrelated to game journalism. It was the Orwellian two minutes hate that lasted for months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anything can be a trolls paradise - all that matters is how creative the troll is. I'll concede, however, not much creativity was needed to troll Gamergate which is why I think it was as bad as it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Because these discussions often featured harassment of Quinn and others, threatening assault, rape, murder, doxing, and the planning and coordination of such threats, a number websites blocked users, removed posts, and created rules to prevent the discussion of such activities."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy#Gamergate_hashtag
As I said before, if there were any serious, legitimate criticism to be leveled by Gamergaters in the area of ethics in game journalism (as if that's really a significant topic to get butthurt over), they poisoned the well for anyone to bother listening to them because of their vicious ad hominems and harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now why would you choose to omit what that "something" is? I mean, it must have been some kind of expose blowing the lid off the corruption of triple A developers strong-arming reviewers and getting them fired for not stepping into line, and definitely not some cringe-worthy teenage-level rant from an angry dude about an ex-girlfriend full of demonstrably false accusations intended to sic a horde of lonely 4channers on a "feminazi" in an attempt to ruin her life. Right?
But, please, expound on this so-called "something." I'm on the edge of my seat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
probably has alot to do with terrible 'reporting'
Where they reported on the old Google+ Photos app like it was brand new.
For more fun, read the Reddit thread about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/37n4mu/the_verge_just_reviewed_the_old_google_photos_app/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They/You are missing part of the headline...
With their advertisers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further stifling people's expression clearly seems like an ideal way to put people's concerns and dissatisfaction to rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it's due to the insightful and funny buttons and the weekly recap on the results. It promotes considered responses and recognises merit in the two categories while at the same time drawing eyes back to the original articles for the interested.
Genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(I notice you've had a scratch behind the ears and been given the first word, good boy, your sycophancy has not gone unnoticed)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(give this a report while you're at it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's what qualifies as insightful for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's funny how you think comments like "Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced" qualify as insightful. So funny, it's pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When did I say that? I don't think I am who you think I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I give insightful votes all the time for posts I consider insightful. They don't always get the lightbulb and I'm not sure how many votes it takes to give them one. The point is...
...you're full of crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not sure who that's more insulting too, the commenters you accuse of pandering for votes or the readers you accuse of being too dumb to make an informed judgement call on a comment. Suffice to say I think you're completely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I write what I sincerely believe here and sometimes I get funny or insightful votes and sometimes I don't. I don't mind disagreeing with others on some points and I don't change my perspective just because a different viewpoint appears to be the dominant one here.
I'm also an anonymous coward. How do you distinguish me from anyone else? How exactly do you reliably quantify groupthink?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not many sites can say that
I dont mean that harshly to 40% of the sites in question, some of you guys and gals are good guys and gals doing good things, just, sometimes, you need that extra quality.....top of the range amateur quality, not that proffesionalism we cant have a comment section, smiley willeys, toe the line type of quality......crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their definition of trolls is anyone that disagrees with them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At some point you drown in stupidity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Moderation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I give Techdirt major respect for putting up with comments. It must be tough sometimes as an author. If I wrote for Techdirt, I wouldn't be able to read the comments on my own news articles. I don't handle criticism well and my blood pressure would rise too much.
Some authors just need to learn to stay out of the comment section for their own articles if they can't handle it. Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This, readers, is a classic case of denial. What The Verge really meant to say was this:
"At The Verge, we've noticed more negative commentary regarding our news stories, and how readers are mislead by titles and are greeted with less-than-stellar reporting.
Since we can't stand constructive criticism regarding how we try to generate more ad revenue (please be sure to Like us!), we're basically going to tell our readers to shut the hell up."
Congratulations, The Verge. You will do precisely the opposite of what you intended to do.
As a veteran, here's a response I'd like to share with you when people sometimes asked why I volunteered to face death: "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Enter Corporate America to kill the very definition of the word "freedom".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love comments myself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I _was_ a huge fan of The Verge...
Now, not so much - I spend less time on the site in favor of other sites.
I'm actually not sure what they meant by the comments being 'bad' - I personally did not see that, internet comment forums are always a bit extremist and The Verge was way, way better than most places (like YouTube, which I still read).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It wasn't about building a better community
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problems with moving comments to Facebook
1) By tying into Facebook, the site is blocking any comments from people who won't or can't get a Facebook account.
2) Yes, there are a lot of people who won't comment on a site because the comment is tied to their Facebook account... for good and bad. It probably won't stop the worst comments since those kinds of people don't care what everyone else on Facebook things about them.
Instead, this affects the people who try to keep a civilized account at Facebook and who may not want their friends to know that they're posting a critique of a "My Little Pony" comic book.
3) And like some other posters are saying, what happens when people move to another site, such as how people moved from Friendster to MySpace to Facebook?
Or should all the sites switch to yet another comment platform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“