Motherboard's Version Of 'Valuing Discussion' Involves No Longer Letting You Comment
from the we-like-you-better-wearing-this-muzzle,-ok? dept
Add Motherboard to the quickly growing list of news websites killing their comment section because they're so breathlessly in love with reader interaction and visitor conversation. Like The Verge, Recode, Popular Science, The Daily Beast and numerous other websites before it, Motherboard has decided that there's simply no value whatsoever to having a healthy, on-site local community. As such the website is shoving any and all reader interaction over to less transparent and noisier discourse avenues like Facebook, Twitter and e-mail because comments as a "medium" are inherently somehow unhealthy:"We at Motherboard have decided to turn off our comments section, a decision we've debated for a year or more. What finally turned the tide was our belief that killing comments and focusing on other avenues of communication will foster smarter, more valuable discussion and criticism of our work. What percentage of comments on any site are valuable enough to be published on their own? One percent? Less? Based on the disparity in quality between emails we get and the average state of comments here and all over the web, I think the problem is a matter of the medium."One, just because only some readers can be bothered to comment doesn't magically devalue the entire comment section, as many reader simply lurk. I'm a lurking reader quick to head to the comment section to see if there's anything a reporter may have overlooked, misunderstood, or missed entirely. Did that tech blogger screw up the Wi-Fi specs on device Y or battery size of gadget Z? Does anybody else think this story makes light of X or misinterprets Y? Does anybody else in here feel the way I do? As a writer I find comments similarly valuable, even if you sometimes have to dig through detritus.
And that's just it: news comments foster community, but they also provide transparency, accountability, and crowdsourced fact checking right below the article, and that's what many sites like least of all. They just won't admit it.
In contrast, Motherboard pretends that their reporting will become just that much better if it doesn't have to worry about pesky public reader interaction:
"Good comment sections exist, and social media can be just as abrasive an alternative. But for a growing site like ours, I think that our readers are best served by dedicating our resources to doing more reporting than attempting to police a comments section in the hopes of marginally increasing the number of useful comments. That doesn't offer any real value to other readers of the site, and we'd all wager that the scorched Earth nature of comments section just stifles real conversation."Unlike other news websites, Motherboard at least admits that it doesn't want to spend the time and money to cultivate a thriving local community. Still, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that weeding the troll comment garden comes at the cost of better reporting. In fact, some studies have shown that simply having a writer show up in the comment section and briefly treat site visitors like human beings raises the discourse bar dramatically. And as several websites have noted, having a healthy comment section pays dividends in the form of loyal visitors. By blocking comments, you're sending that community elsewhere (not that Techdirt minds -- Motherboard readers are welcome to comment here).
Motherboard seems to miss absolutely all of the benefits of on-site community, consistently coming back to this strange idea that as a "medium" comments are inherently flawed:
"Comment sections inspire quick, potent remarks, which too easily veer into being useless or worse. Sending an email knowing that a human will actually see it tends to foster thought, which is what we want.Because nitwits never send barely coherent single-sentence idiot bile via e-mail, right? Comments are simply a blank slate input field. How is that a flawed "medium"? The flaw is it forces outlets to work just a little bit harder, and doesn't allow them to filter what gets said and heard. As such, Motherboard yearns to head back to the era of "letters to the editor," which it may or may not respond to or publish:
"So in addition to encouraging that you reach out to our reporters via email or social media, you can now also share your thoughts with editors via letters@motherboard.tv. Once a week or thereabouts we'll publish a digest of the most insightful letters we get."Or hey, we might not. And that's the problem: when only outlet-approved voices are made public you've muted an entire avenue of news dialogue correction and thrown the baby out with the bathwater, all in a misguided belief that we should try and force the open Internet back into the Walter Cronkite era of audience interaction. Of course all of these news editors and authors are just so dumbstruck and dizzy with the idea of not having to interact with snotty critics anymore, they can't see the forest (news as a healthy, fluid public conversation) for the trees (bile-lobbing blowhards).
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, conversation, discussion, journalism, motherboard
Companies: vice
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Comments can be valuable, but...
Half the comments on vice properties are spam work at home ads, and the rest were never worth saving. The audience just isn't there--unlike at this site where commenters can usually be bothered to know what they're talking about.
There's also research showing that for things like climate change news, idiotic or combative comments just make less-informed readers less likely to believe the article and draw any meaningful conclusions from it.
Not every news site on the web has to be an uncensored free-for-all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-d iscovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnii5thn-1227555674611
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
I tend to agree with you - it's often incompatible with the goals of a given site. Between the comment spam and off topic postings, most new comment sections are useless anyway. The costs and efforts required to police the comment sections are not small.
Many sites runs wordpress as their backend for news sites. Let's just say that comments in wordpress are not only more difficult to moderate, but it is also an insanely popular and fixed input system, which comment spammers love. Opening a wordpress site to comments pretty much signs your life away if you intend to moderate the comments at all:
http://wptavern.com/lessons-i-learned-moderating-comments-in-wordpress
I actually think that comments at this point have reached a similar point that email reached a long time ago: The ratio of good to bad got so far out of hand, that people started to take steps to turn from an open system of "accept all mail" to whitelist solutions. That in many ways is the only way that email continues to survive.
Finally, there is one other thing that news organizations face that most of the rest us won't have to deal with: Getting a Drudging. That happens when Drudge Report posts up a link with an outrageous headline (Libs Planning to Take Your Guns and Shoot You With them!), and then every conservative nutjob on the planet shows up to post obnoxious, poorly informed attacks on the site, the writer, and anyone who happens to agree in any way with that the site has posted. It has to be very discouraging for readers of a site to see their opinions trashed at every turn to satisfy someone else's agenda. There is a point where turning of the comments helps to stop this mindless war of words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
If you cannot defend your point of view, then you will naturally head towards blocking any contrary or alternative view. Any decent apologist can stand his/her ground.
I find that there are many off-topic posts that start very interesting discussions. Conversations between people never stay on-topic, they are dynamic. This is what facilitates the transfer of ideas and concepts and hopefully sharpens the mental abilities of those participating. Even those who have difficulty in stringing two syllables together can provide interesting insight at times. My 18 month old grandson is a case in point.
Pot calling kettle black.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
Read the rest of my comment. Often the efforts required to do so are way too much for a site to handle. It's a ton of work, and if it's not really adding value to the site, perhaps it's just not worth the costs and manpower to do so.
"I find that there are many off-topic posts that start very interesting discussions. "
Yes, that is true. However, many off topic posts also lead to bickering, flame wars, and out and out fights. The dicussions may be useful in a forum or on an opinion based site like Techdirt, but may not be appropriate on a news site. A news site full of bickering, name calling, and off topic posts may not encourage people to return.
My point only is that open comments are not an absolute - they are not needed on every site, on every post, all the time.
"Pot calling kettle black."
Perfect description of your lightly concealed flame post. Carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
If I wanted to flame you sonny jim, I wouldn't just be highlighting the ignorance you so profoundly wear on your sleeve. But then I couldn't be bothered flaming you, so I'll just settle for correcting your ignorance.
Further comments removed due to it being a pointless endeavour of explaining whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
Whatever's shtick is to paint himself as the oppressed victim or martyr of society's scum while dressing himself up as some elite visionary of the creme de la creme, for which only privilege, not responsibility, must be given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
For these topics, your point has been essentially little more than "Well, everyone else are clearly idiots. They deserve neither anonymity, nor the chance to speak their minds, and anyone else who disagrees with me is a prole." And then you proceed to whine about other posters here, complaining that people online would never repeat what they say away from the keyboard because they're uncouth sneaky bastards. Seriously, go do yourself a favor. Repeat your own opinion in public, loudly and proudly. Explain why you believe that collateral damage during no-knock police raids is acceptable, and why shooting unarmed citizens is a practice that must be defended because policemen might get hurt. Reveal your beliefs that only people who agree with what you say and have been filtered by an arbitrary system should be allowed the veil of anonymity. Go ahead, see how much support you'll muster.
It's the same thing over and over again as another poster brought up in another topic. The idea that you might be at fault, or partially responsible for something you don't agree with, infuriates you to no end because you have such a ridiculously high opinion of yourself. The fact that you gaining the (very) occasional insightful vote during the rare instance when you're not a complete asswipe is proof that the system here works. It's nobody else's fault that you regularly squander away whatever goodwill you accrue by being a jerk.
Right here, going through your post history, anyone can see how you litter yourself with self-important examples. Here's a quote I find particularly relevant in summarizing your shtick:
>Try not to color the world with your personal issues
>Insists on his definition of the world
If you're so angry, why not go ahead and use Tor like a filthy pirate would and vote your comments insightful? You'd be following the footsteps of another regular spammer and troll who has equally nothing to contribute, so you'd be in good hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
And what a surprise, you finish your droll whining with pledged support for spam and chicken noises over getting called out for your usual fibbing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comments can be valuable, but...
If you think you can unleash your wisdom on the world (who did not ask for it), why should anyone be forbidden from commenting on your BS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, for me, home IPA blocked so can only post by TOR, then all my comments "hidden", YOU are sheer flaming hypocrites.
So as public service I show what happens to dissent here. -- Click away in 3... aw, ya didn't even wait!
By the way, how many clicks does it take, out of how many readers, and does an administrator okay the censoring? Be transparent, Techdirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, for me, home IPA blocked so can only post by TOR, then all my comments
Now nothing to do but time how long until censored...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again, for me, home IPA blocked so can only post by TOR, then all my comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, for me, home IPA blocked so can only post by TOR, then all my comments "hidden", YOU are sheer flaming hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possible ulterior motives for ending comment sections -- gutting Section 230
That is, gutting Section 230. If enough sites lose their comments, then they'll feel (wrongly) that they don't need Section 230 anymore.
And, by coincidence I'm sure, a celebrity gameshow champion writes an article calling for the end of Section 230. He claims it's in the name of protecting people from abuse.
But read his Twitter feed, and notice that he spends more time talking about how the DMCA is apparently ineffective. And he links to the Trichordist to justify some points.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects have recently been spreading talking points about the need for "takedown" to mean "staydown". And they've set up a website "takedownstaydown DOT org".
And the TPP is in its final negotiating phase...
Are you starting to see a pattern?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Possible ulterior motives for ending comment sections -- gutting Section 230
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Possible ulterior motives for ending comment sections -- gutting Section 230
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Possible ulterior motives for ending comment sections -- gutting Section 230
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm glad I can comment here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1% of comments are valuable?
I for one, enjoy reading comments, even at YouTube, maybe the lowest of all comments. Many are insightful, many are absolutely funny and yes many are bad. But I learn nearly as much from the comments as I do from the article.
What I think is happening, is years ago where letters to the editor were the only way to interact with media, the media had control of the conversation. They were viewed as experts. Now the comments can prove that wrong within minutes. I think they long for the day where they can sit high on the mountain and dictate the "conversation".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1% of comments are valuable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Be scared, be very scared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I missing something
... our belief that killing comments and focusing on other avenues of communication will foster smarter, more valuable discussion and criticism of our work
If they kill the comments section, how exactly will that foster smarter or more valuable discussion? I think it'll kill some of the conversation since some people don't want to create a Facebook or Twitter account just to post a comment and other people can't log into Facebook or Twitter (such as on a work computer). Plus, there are numerous other reasons why people may not want to post a comment through Facebook.
Maybe the bigger issue is that sites don't want anonymous people criticizing them or pointing out flaws in the articles. This way, if someone criticizes, they have to log in with their real name on Facebook for the world to see. Many people are probably okay with this, but some may not be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of speech...
most times I read the comments section to see if a story is worth reading at all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of speech...
As for reading the comments to see if an article is worth reading... you often let others think for you, is that it? How about.. you know, reading the article yourself to find out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom of speech...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom of speech...
Did anything else of significance happen that year?
(Sorry, that was naughty, I just couldn't resist...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is Techdirt continually reporting on this?
You were wrong on the NYTimes and some other paywalls. WHy don't you report on that? Report on how you were wrong on how some paywalls actually provide value?
YOu were wrong in that turning off some comment venues actually increases the viewers experience with a site. WHy not report on that?
You don't really cover the points in which you aren't exactly right, do you? Seems like a circlejerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is Techdirt continually reporting on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is Techdirt continually reporting on this?
I dunno, I think it's important to keep highlighting it since so many seem totally oblivious to the down side.
How about I stop writing about it when news websites stop claiming they're muzzling their audience for the benefit of an open dialogue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is Techdirt continually reporting on this?
What I am hoping is that these news sites can find a better way to engage people. That may mean offered longer form "op-ed" space or having better twitter and facebook discussions about the news. Losing the comments altogether is a steep price, but the overwhelming amount of negativity, hatred, and outright fighting wasn't advancing the dialog at all. Moving it to Facebook, as an example, may in fact be improving the dialog, just not in a way you are as comfortable with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is Techdirt continually reporting on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is Techdirt continually reporting on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Depending on the type of article...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We're getting rid of comments because we the troll posts."
That would earn my respect much more than the flimsy reasons they toss out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why I read comments
Most of the time, whatever I was having an issue with is already there; I don't tend to bring it up again. Sometimes I just have a quip of my own to toss in - and sometimes I get things wrong, only to then to be corrected by other commenters - something I appreciate very much; they clarify my confusion in an incidental way.
I even look forward to comments from the not-so-friendly troll with a hate-on for Mike - I want to see if he's managed a new level of idiocy (spoiler: usually... yes, todays was a head-scratcher of a let down).
Sometimes - no offence to the writers here at TechDirt - the comments are the best part of the post!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I avoid sites where the noise level is too high, but usually there was nothing there in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've been studying this pretty closely and I've yet to see one website be totally honest about this and not, in some form, try to claim that muzzling their audience opens up broader conversational opportunities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two insults for the price of one
"We don't care to listen to you any more, and we're firmly of the opinion that you're stupid enough to buy into the excuse that blocking you from commenting on our stories is meant to increase communication and discussion."
They can remove the comments sections if they care to, whether because they get tired of reader comments showing how and when they're wrong, or simply because they can't be bothered to do even a bit of moderating, but when they lie about their reasons, then they need to be called out on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two insults for the price of one
It's NOT that the comments sections are vanishing, it's the idiotic "reasons" being given for it.
I was going to say that if you don't want to deal with a comments section (and I suspect that's the real reason), just say so.
BUT... if they're pushing "comments" to third party platforms out of their direct control (such as facebook), paranoia pushes me to wonder if it's not so that they can take legal action against "bad comments".
Either way, don't urinate on my leg and tell me it's raining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two insults for the price of one
It might be the case that they're not merely too cheap to moderate their comments sections properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark my words: ArsTechnica is next, give it a few months...
I could never express in words how much I've learned over the years not only with amazing articles, but ESPECIALLY through invaluable input from thousands and thousands of regular users with hardcore knowledge of the subject matter at issue in each of them.
But quite some time ago they started trying really hard to push this toxic ideology of a pseudo-feminist agenda, (watch especially from minute 49:55 on-wards for a primer and in it's entirety for a complete and condensed fact-filled crash course on journalistic/moral and ethical corruption) and with disinformation tactics, and they have been relentless in this push...
And when the vast majority of readers point out their factual errors, fallacies, and flagrant bias, they just "moderate" those comments (read censorship) and flat out block them.
They just seem to not give a fuck about the Ars community any more. That may be the only website I will really regret not going back ever again, if and when they pull the plug on the comment section... I'm really fed up as it is with what the site as a whole as come to.
But the amount of knowledge and "agnostic" resources one gets just by reading the comments and compiling hundreds of links that the community selflessly contribute day in and day out, on every single article... that website has amassed a treasure trove of intellectual capital, I really wish they would value it so much more...
But this seems to be the sad state of affairs... just push a fundamentalist ideology and bury the head on the sand... lalalalallala we don't hear!! lalallalalaa
For what it's worth, this is their last sorry attempt at pushing the same already a-million-times-over debunked narrative...
PLEASE Read the comment section there, 99% of readers are politely telling them that they are not buying the shit they are trying to sell, with well reasoned counter-arguments and facts... and all we get in return is a half-ass response from "some editor", yet the article's title and the subtitle remain untouched!
Adding insult to injury, this last article (as well as many previous ones) are concocted and featured under the SCIENTIFIC METHOD/SCIENCE & EXPLORATION section!!
They are a disgrace to the scientific method and to science in general with this flagrant ideology pushing and lame practices, a hundred face-palms do not cut it...
Anyway, maybe you guys can do something, I've seen many times that you cross-reference some of their articles and vice-versa, maybe you can talk to some higher-ups @ Ars before it's to late, they do not seem to care that they relabeled themselves "The Titanic-a" and with every piece of made-up hateful propaganda, with every comment they censor and block, with any piece of feedback they get telling them they are on the wrong path and they ignore, they keep rearranging chairs...
In closing, taking the world wide web as a whole, that community and the one that comments here at TechDirt, are the only ones I would really miss if they ever go under.
Sorry about a really long rant, but it's really sad for me to have been a front row witness to the decline in journalism standards of some of the most prestigious websites out there, Ars, the Guardian, Motherboard/Vice, those you mentioned and others.
Keep up the good work here, I salute you from Argentina.-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mark my words: ArsTechnica is next, give it a few months...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't make sense
Right, because nothing will increase the value of comments to other site readers like making commenting impossible.
No, Facebook, Twitter, etc. aren't even close to substitutions for a comment section for a bunch of reasons, starting with the fact that lots of people don't use those services and as a result are just locked out completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be possible to create "shadow" comment sections for websites that do not possess (or close) comment sections. You could browse them by entering the website URL into a suitable browser page (heck, it could even embed the article being commented on, a la stumbleUpon). Or browser plugins could be created that would expose a button to take you to the shadow comments for the website your looking at... There are many solutions if someone were willing to host shadow comments.
This would then take control completely away from those who want to abuse it.
Of course it would also spawn numerous lawsuits, and sometimes permit outrageous behaviour, as well as combating private censorship. Them's the breaks, you get the bad with the good, usually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shadow comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you like to have your receipt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Russia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Removing the comments changes the entire nature of a site; the presented opinion piece is now actually a fact piece, the authors opinion is not up for debate anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social Network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PCB Prototype Assembly Services
[ link to this | view in chronology ]