NPR The Latest Website To Prevent You From Commenting Because It Simply Adores 'Relationships' And 'Conversation'

from the this-muzzle-represents-my-love-for-you dept

For several years now we've documented the rise in websites that shutter their comment sections, effectively muzzling their own on-site communities. Usually this is because websites are too lazy and cheap to moderate or cultivate real conversation, or they're not particularly keen on having readers point out their inevitable errors in such a conspicuous location. But you can't just come out and admit this -- so what we get is all manner of disingenuous prattle from website editors about how the comments section is being closed because they just really value conversation, or are simply trying to build better relationships.

NPR appears to be the latest in this trend du jour, with Managing Editor of digital news Scott Montgomery penning a new missive over at the website saying the comments are closing as of August 23:

"After much experimentation and discussion, we've concluded that the comment sections on NPR.org stories are not providing a useful experience for the vast majority of our users. In order to prioritize and strengthen other ways of building community and engagement with our audience, we will discontinue story-page comments on NPR.org on August 23."

Again, nothing says we "love and are engaged with" our community quite like preventing them from being able to speak to you on site (this muzzle represents my love for you, darling). The logic is, as Montgomery proceeds to proclaim, that social media is just so wonderful, on-site dialogue is no longer important:

Social media is now one of our most powerful sources for audience interaction. Our desks and programs run more than 30 Facebook pages and more than 50 Twitter accounts. We maintain vibrant presences on Snapchat, Instagram and Tumblr. Our main Facebook page reaches more than 5 million people and recently has been the springboard for hundreds of hours of live video interaction and audience-first projects such as our 18,000-member "Your Money and Your Life" group.

And while those are all excellent additional avenues of interaction and traffic generation, it's still not quite the same as building brand loyalty through cultivating community and conversation on site. By outsourcing all conversation to Facebook, you're not really engaging with your readers, you're herding them to a homogonized, noisy pasture where they're no longer your problem. In short, we want you to comment -- we just want you to comment privately or someplace else so our errors aren't quite so painfully highlighted and we no longer have to try to engage you publicly. All for the sake of building deeper relationships, of course.

Montgomery talked a little more about NPR's decision on Twitter, where Mathew Ingram (one of roughly three writers I've found who gives two flying damns about the negative impact of this trend) politely pondered if NPR really tried all that hard before giving up: Except, as we've noted time and time again, studies show that it's not really that hard to cultivate a healthier on-site comment section simply by showing up. Just having a writer or editor show up and treat readers like human beings dramatically improves the overall tone of the conversation. This isn't something that requires all that much time and effort. But because editors can't clearly quantify the benefits of giving a damn in this fashion, they've decided it's easier and cheaper to just give up.

Elsewhere on NPR's website user reaction to the news has been overwhelmingly negative, with many users saying they don't have social media accounts and appreciated the on-site ability to have vaguely intelligent conversation. Says one user:

They're getting rid of a great community of discussion. It's the best forum I've known, with people from all walks of life discussing the news with a moderate amount of intelligence, and a healthy dose of wit. I'm pretty upset. After the comments go, I won't visit NPR much anymore. There's not much content compared to other sites. It was the discussion that kept me coming back.

Another reader offers a more blunt take:

And the "public" in public radio goes away, except for the pleas for money. There's no interaction any more, emails are ignored, Twitter is useless, and Facebook is a gross invasion of privacy. Sad NPR. And worse that the supposed advocate for the listener backs the decision. Perhaps if NPR had actually involved itself with the commenting instead of isolating and offshoring it, you would have found that things would have worked better for you.

Sadly, like Bloomberg, Recode, Reuters, Popular Science, and other sites, NPR and Montgomery round out the announcement by claiming that muzzling your community somehow illustrates a love of "deeper relationships" and "conversation":

In the eight years since NPR first launched its online comment section, the world of social media has changed dramatically, as has NPR's digital presence. We're constantly asking ourselves where we can create the best dialogue with you and how we can deepen that relationship. It's a question we will keep asking because the way we communicate online will keep changing. We're looking forward to continuing the conversation.

That sounds so much lovelier than "nobody in our writing or editorial staff wants to take the time to cultivate local on-site community," "we're lazily cutting corners" or "we don't like having our mistakes highlighted publicly right below our articles," don't you think?

Filed Under: comments, community, relationships
Companies: npr

Police Department Says It Would Rather Have A Good Relationship With The Community Than Cheap Military Gear

from the correctly-ordered-priorities dept

Here's something worth reading: the Burlington, Vermont Police Department has announced it will no longer be participating in the Dept. of Defense's 1033 Program. This program is the well-intentioned effort to somehow make use of excess/old military inventory. Unfortunately, along with desks, computers, file cabinets and other office staples, the government also allows police departments to pick up mine-resistant vehicles, assault rifles, grenade launchers and other military gear -- often at a steep discount that's made even more inexpensive by Homeland Security grants.

The full press release by the says several things those within its jurisdiction need to hear, along with the rest of the nation's law enforcement agencies (via Information Liberation)

The Burlington Police Department announced today that the Department has severed its ties with the much-scrutinized “1033 Program,” a Department of Defense initiative that allows aging military equipment to be repurposed for domestic policing. Until this summer, the Burlington Police Department possessed two military-issued night vision devices, which were the extent of its holdings under the Department of Defense (DOD) program.

“The militarization of local police departments is a genuine concern in our nation,” said Burlington Chief of Police Brandon del Pozo. “There are times when military-style equipment is essential for public safety, but they are very rare. Between our partners in the Vermont State Police and the Vermont National Guard, as well as the other federal and local agencies the Burlington Police Department partners with, we have the resources to handle all but the most inconceivable public safety scenarios. Amassing a worst-case scenario arsenal of military equipment results in officers seeing everyday policework through a military lens. When I realized what a small role the military played in equipping our police, I concluded it was better to return the items and let our 1033 Program memorandum of understanding expire.”

The Burlington Police Department has no plans to acquire tactical or military items beyond the types of conventional policing equipment it already possesses.

Mayor Miro Weinberger offered his support of this decision: “Today’s announcement cements the Burlington Police Department’s long-standing practice of avoiding the use of military equipment, in contrast to many other police departments. Our focus instead is on the basics of good policing in the 21st century: foot patrols, strong relationships between the officers and the community, and the use of modern tools to increase public transparency and police effectiveness."

One thing should be clarified: the 1033 Program is by no means mandatory. "Severing ties" really means just deciding not to participate. The MOU may have expired but it could have run on forever without the PD feeling obligated to order anything from the 1033 catalog.

What's more important are the sentiments expressed by the Burlington police chief. He recognizes that acquiring military gear only leads to a military mindset that turns public servants into an invading force. Even better, del Pozo recognizes that using worst-case scenarios as justification for heavily-armored vehicles and military weaponry is a bullshit tactic. As we've seen time and time again, local law enforcement will claim anything and everything is a "potential terrorist target" just so they can acquire cheap MRAPs and M4A1 rifles. Del Pozo isn't going to take his force down a similar path.

The mayor's vocal support of this decision is a pleasant surprise as well. Mayor Weinberger won't be making himself any friends in other law enforcement agencies after calling them out for their (ab)use of the 1033 program. Hopefully, other agencies will see Burlington's very public opt-out as worthy of emulation. But considering the latest narratives to take hold (Ferguson Effect, War on Cops) both paint police officers as under siege, it's highly doubtful many will recognize the goodwill they could generate simply by treating residents as human beings, rather than enemy combatants.

Filed Under: 1033, burlington, community policing, military equipment, police, relationships, vermont

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: To The Verge's credit they'll still allow forum posts and indicate the comments will return eventually, but the pretense that we're building a better community by putting a collective bag over said community's head never seems to get tired. As numerous sites have illustrated, it doesn't take much work to create a more civil, less-batshit comment section. Some do it with minimal moderation. Others, like us at Techdirt, try to create better incentives for good comments and encourage a strong and vocal community, rather than seeing comments as some sort of "task" to be "dealt" with. Hopefully The Verge's comment vacation is a step toward that direction, and not toward a permanent community comment vacation.

Filed Under: comments, community, openness, relationships, the verge
Companies: vox

German Court Rules Ex-Lovers Must Disappear Consensual Previously Taken Nude Pictures Of The Other

from the no-takebacks dept

The aspect of the whole "right to be forgotten" business that's been occurring in Europe that most interests me isn't the legal wranglings or the plethora of unforeseen consequences that will inevitably rear its ugly head. Rather, I'm chiefly interested in the mentality that wanting such legislation suggests. That mentality appears to essentially amount to a request that chosen-actions that might end up being embarrassing should be subject to the whims of he or she that might be embarrassed. While this strikes me as immensely silly, it's not difficult to understand that the unprecedentedly long memory of the internet, as well as its inherent function as an easily-searched index, has made the consequences for embarrassing actions occur on a longer timeline than ever before. Pushing back against that change in the action-response scenario was probably inevitable, even if it's still wrong.

But it isn't just the internet that creates these kinds of scenarios. Digital photography presents a similar problem, with embarrassing images easily stored in perpetuity on hard drives and free from the wear and tear that old developed photos had to endure. And that's how we end up with a German court ruling that ex-lovers who had consented to being photographed nude and/or engaged in sexual activity must be deleted once the relationship ends.

The man, an unnamed photographer, had taken explicit photographs of his partner and made erotic videos with her throughout their relationship. The court heard the woman had consented to all of the material being taken and, in some cases, had taken the photographs herself. When their relationship ended, the woman insisted that all of the images and videos she appeared in be deleted.

The court agreed that any privately recorded nude pictures and footage which she appeared in should be deleted or withdrawn on the grounds of personal rights, which are considered higher than the ownership rights of the photographer, the Local has reported.

Let's wade around the legal weeds of German rights for a moment and break this down in laymen's terms. The court has ruled that actions previously agreed to are subject to the wants of that actor once a romantic relationship ends simply because they might embarrass said actor. One might have sympathy with the woman in this specific case, who didn't want her ex-lover to retain nude photos or videos of her in suggestive situations with him. But negating the responsibility for decisions made is going to open up a whole can of worms the court has no business involving itself in. In this case, they ruled that photos of the woman fully-clothed weren't subject to deletion, because they wouldn't "compromise" her. Great, except now define "fully-clothed", explain why the woman's feelings that her in a low-cut t-shirt isn't fully clothed, what ability the court has demonstrated to be a good arbiter of other people's feelings of being compromised, etc.

The point is that when the courts get involved in attempting to protect people from their own feelings, it's going to go wrong. Each and every time. Because the court shouldn't be in this kind of subjective debate. On top of that, alleviating citizens from the consequences of actions they consented to isn't the court's business either. Yes, it's possible that the man may use the photos in questionable ways, but let the court deal with those offenses rather than the vague possibility of an offense. This court instead said the ex had to delete the photos that are his to possess, simply because. Have fun with the resulting caseload, Germany.

Filed Under: germany, photography, relationships, right to be forgotten

DailyDirt: Online Dating, FTW?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Some folks look at online dating services as a tool for meeting like-minded people (with potentially romantic engagements). But as with almost anything on the internet, there are also people out there trying to game the system and figure out how the algorithms behind the date matching systems work. (Though, sometimes the process is a bit simpler.) Just to gear up for Valentine's Day later this week, here are just a few examples of people taking online dating to an extreme.

• Chris McKinlay used his PhD-level math skills to improve his dating experience on OkCupid. Using 12 fake OkCupid accounts and some Python scripts, he scraped millions of responses from 20,000 women... and after 88 first dates with women he found with his own algorithms, he's in a serious relationship. [url]
• About 40 million people in the US are using online dating services like eHarmony, Match.com, etc. And if those dating site users are anything like their counterparts in China, people aren't as fussy about their dates as their profiles might imply -- based on a study of hundreds of thousands of dating interactions on baihe.com (which has 60 million registered users). [url]
• Alli Reed performed her own experiment on OkCupid, trying to determine how awful a woman's profile could be before men would stop messaging her. The one part of her fake profile that wasn't awful was the very attractive profile picture, so the answer should be somewhat obvious. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: algorithm, alli reed, chris mckinlay, dating, fake profiles, math, relationships, romance
Companies: baihe, eharmony, match.com, okcupid

DailyDirt: The Mating Behavior of Online Daters

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Online dating sites provide a vast amount of interesting data for researchers studying human behavior. These sites record how much people lie about themselves to try to impress others, and dating sites contain a wide variety of personal data that can be sliced and diced according to age, gender, income, education, interests, you-name-it. Here are just a few studies that have looked at digital dating databases for insights into the minds of people searching for soul mates and long walks on the beach.

• A study of 18 different dating sites, including eHarmony, Match, Plenty of Fish and Yahoo Personal, suggests that online daters are maybe slightly more successful at finding spouses than offline daters. The study also pointed out that there wasn't much difference between dating sites based on breakup rates, although some online dating sites had higher ratings for marriage satisfaction. (A+++ Would marry again!) [url]
• A meta-analysis for over 400 academic studies about online dating stated that about 25 million people use dating websites. The results of online dating aren't exactly conclusive, but with more and more people meeting mates with the help of websites, "online dating" is getting to be just like "dating". [url]
• About 81% of online daters misrepresent the facts about how tall, how heavy, or how old they are. Interestingly, people with online dating profiles are also more likely to admit to being fat than being conservative. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: marriage, matching, online dating, personal data, relationships, romance
Companies: eharmony, match.com

DailyDirt: Modern Computer Dating

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are search engines for just about everything. Computers help people find all sorts of things faster and easier, so it's not surprising that computer dating is decades old (and started out with punch cards). Technology has gotten a lot better, but has online dating really improved that much?

• Online dating sites claim to be able to find soul mates, but studies suggest they can only provide introductions -- and more often than not, they instill a "shopping mindset" which is not conducive to building lasting relationships. Some psychologists even doubt the possibility of creating algorithms that could successfully match people for real romance. (But experts also scoffed at the first chess-playing computers, too.) [url]
• In 2005, Steven Carter, the director of research at eHarmony, described how his work to create predictive models for compatibility became the basis of his dream job. Carter is probably a bit biased, so where is some peer review for eHarmony's research? [url]
• Perhaps some intense linguistic analysis can predict dating success. Apparently, people who have similar speech patterns are more likely to date each other. Watch your use of pronouns, folks.... [url]
• To discover more interesting tech-related content, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: algorithms, compatibility, dating, natural language processing, nlp, psychology, relationships
Companies: eharmony

The Key To Being A Successful Musician: Focus On Fan Relationships... Not Industry Relationships

from the get-it-straight dept

Mark Rosedale points us to an interesting blog post from singer/songwriter Shaun Groves, where he discusses how the music business is changing, and how it's the artists that need to change, by focusing on different kinds of relationships:

The music business is about relationship. And now it's the artist's turn to have one.

Success in the music business once hinged on only a handful of relationships: a publicist and a magazine, a salesman and a bookstore, a radio promoter and a radio station, a booking guy and a promoter, an artist and a manager, a writer and a publisher. If all these relationships were working, if all parties' interests were respected and pursued, if no personalities collided to the point of impeding progress, then the project or artist they were tied to would succeed (from a business standpoint.)

But, today, that equation has changed, and artists need to learn how to have very different types of relationships -- and it's difficult for some:

Technologies can foster relationships. But not without a lot of personal investment and intentionality from an artist.

This is a big shift in thinking for artists, especially at the top levels of this industry. Artists aren't accustomed to being so accessible, accountable and out of control. Artists are accustomed to being in front of audiences that care about what they do, audiences they know are fans and they keep in the seats for a couple hours by charging a ticket price. But on-line, where spending time with an artist is free, anybody can wander into the crowd, boo, change the subject, or walk out. And they will.

Also, artists are used to hiring people to handle their relationships for them. That's at least 90% of what a manager does. Labels congratulate and critique through a manager, for instance, who adds his own diplomatic spin to every word so the artist's feelings aren't hurt and the relationship is preserved. Not so on-line. Someone can be hired to hit the "publish" button on a blog post that gets e-mailed over, invite people to a Facebook event and even write to people for an artist and signed their name (it happens), but no one can convincingly be the artist every day in post after post or interact with commenters regularly. Artists can't hire anyone to be them 24/7 and the internet demands those kind of hours.

I know that whenever we write stories about artists successfully connecting with fans, we get angry messages from music industry folks about "what if artists don't want to connect with fans." What Shaun is suggesting here is that if they don't, then they're not going to have the type of relationships necessary in the modern music world. In some ways, saying "what if musicians don't want to interact with fans" is the equivalent of saying "and what if Widget Co.'s employees don't want to interact with customers." That's fine... but then they can't complain when their widgets don't sell. Shaun concludes by stating:

If the music industry dies it won't be because everything changed. It will be because artists didn't. Artists today have to - no, we get to - do what the rest of the industry and human race has been doing for eons: We get to be real human beings spending time with other real human beings. There's no shortcut for that.

This is a fantastic point. In my MidemNet presentation about how Trent Reznor connected with fans and gave them a reason to buy, one point I raised briefly (which got a laugh from the audience) was the crazy idea that some of Reznor's actions made him "seem human," and how rare that was in the music industry. It's a point that bares repeating, so I'm glad Shaun called it out (and that Mark alerted me to it). Nearly every success story we've discussed has had that in common: it's about making the artists seem human -- and that helps people feel like they want to help the artists out and they want to pay for things, rather than feeling pressured or coerced into paying.

Filed Under: artists, business models, music, relationships, shaun groves

I Love You, Honey, But Not As Much As The Internet (or Twitter)

from the how-sweet dept

An in-no-way-biased survey from a German broadband trade group says that 84 percent of German twentysomethings would rather give up their partner or a car than their internet connection. No word on the breakdown of that 84 percent between partner and car, but given the fantastic experiences I've had on German public transport, I've got to imagine cars are probably much easier to give up. Although if you ditch your partner, you can always find a new one online, though just eight percent of respondents said they'd done so. Don't buy it? Just check out the travails of recently split up celebrity couple Jennifer Aniston and John Mayer. Apparently she dumped him because Mayer would make time for Twitter, but not for her.

Filed Under: internet, jennifer aniston, john mayer, relationships