A Freep.com proposal

[corktownyuppie]

I generally don't read the Freep.Com comment section because the level of dialogue falls somewhere near the median level of intelligence on daytime talk shows....somewhere between Maury Povich paternity testing and a Jerry Springer marathon.

A radical proposal, for any of you who work for one of the daily rags: You don't print anonymous editorials, right? Why not hold online comments to the same standard?

...the Times has been using both "regular" comments and Facebook comments side by side for months, and according to Orr, "the level of discourse - the difference - was pretty stunning," explaining that the Facebook comments barely required any moderation, but the traditional commenting "immediately plunged into the lowest common denominator - racism, threats, vulgarity. It was night-and-day."

This kind of accountability isn't something that is going to be easily accepted by everyone online—think about the outcry about Google+ demanding real names be used—but it does suggest a potential way out of the occasionally frustrating, depressing world of comments sections ruled by fake names and attempts to win arguments with insults and shouting the loudest.


Read more: http://techland.time.com/2011/08/22/...#ixzz1VoUekYp4

For what it's worth, Time Magazine..."Facebook Comments Make Websites Smarter, More Polite"

Online forums are one thing, so I'm not necessarily hard-pressed to make the suggestion for blogs or places like DYes. But if journalistic publications want to be taken seriously, maybe we can work to re-consider whether the safety provided by anonymity is really all that valuable when weighed against the almost useless discourse that spews from writers whose identities are screened by the "hoods" of cyberspace and usernames.*

*[[making subtle reference to the Ku Klux Klan)

[firstandten]

I think its a good idea, sometimes I fear for my country after reading some of those freep.com comments

[Crumbled_pavement]

I noticed that Politico is also testing Facebook comments. The level of discourse for the Facebook comments are far better than the level of discourse for the regular commentators. Only thing I don't like is I don't have a Facebook account and am not about to create one. I do have a G+ account, so if these sites are a little more open to various social networking sites then I think this is the way to go. I learn a lot from the comments on various news articles, but no one wants to have to wade through trash just to get to the one or two good comments.

[Novine]

Don't hold your breath waiting for change. The Freep long ago abandoned any pretense of holding commenters accountable for their comments. The Free Press has refused to apply the standards it uses for its letters pages to the comments part of their web site. They made some effort a while back to block the worst offenders but the quality of the comments is still somewhere south of the gutter.

[Crumbled_pavement]

Don't hold your breath waiting for change. The Freep long ago abandoned any pretense of holding commenters accountable for their comments. The Free Press has refused to apply the standards it uses for its letters pages to the comments part of their web site. They made some effort a while back to block the worst offenders but the quality of the comments is still somewhere south of the gutter.

A lot of sites are testing out social media comments. MLive lets me use my G+ account to comment on their site. I think as more and more media outlets resort to social media accounts for commenting there will be a lot less filth being posted and more and more useful comments being posted.

EDIT: I forgot, USA Today also allows commenters to use their social media accounts to comment on their website. They don't force you to use a social media account, but I wouldn't be surprised if they move in that direction.

[English]

Great proposal. It might make discourse on the website more meaningful.

[Ravine]

"Filter" is being used as a euphemism for "censor."

I am against censorship. We are talking about words.

I want to know what, and how, people are really thinking.

[Crumbled_pavement]

"Filter" is being used as a euphemism for "censor."

I am against censorship. We are talking about words.

I want to know what, and how, people are really thinking.

The websites aren't censoring anyone, people are cowards. If they weren't cowards they would tell you what they are really thinking regardless of the venue.

[Ravine]

The websites aren't censoring anyone, people are cowards. If they weren't cowards they would tell you what they are really thinking regardless of the venue.

No; some venues disallow one from expressing what they are really thinking.
Many web-sites engage in some form of censorship. I understand it, and I don't mean that as a dis-approving criticism, actually; I'm just saying that I am against it, because I truly do want to know.
"Political Correctness," in its seemingly benevolent way, has set race relations back quite a bit. Intolerance & hate have, in some quarters, gone underground, where they are more dangerous.
And cowards, as you call them and in the way I infer that you mean the term, aren't going to be honest, anyway, regardless of the place or the guidelines thereof.

[Roq]

One point to consider is the rabid scouring of social media sites by prospective and current employers. I don't need my right of Rush Limbaugh boss reading my liberal comments.

[canuck]

I am ambivalent about this. On one side, you can have laws that will strike against hate literature, and all manner of hate propaganda. Most of this stuff is clear-cut. On an internet forum, I would rather see the kind of checks and balances from participants that correct the course by commenting albeit intelligently on the less savoury input from the hateful clucks.

[Red Devil]

Social media profiles do not necessarily remove the cloak of anonymity. Anyone can make up a Facebook "pen name" in 5 minutes.

[Roq]

Social media profiles do not necessarily remove the cloak of anonymity. Anyone can make up a Facebook "pen name" in 5 minutes.

Well yeah, but you'd be surprised at how much information I have found on supposedly "anonymous" profiles / accounts.

My point was a lot of people DON"T know how to hide themselves from FB searches or create lists for different people and requiring full disclosure may not be as great as some people are making it out to be.

The Freep comment sections, following the general trend of the paper itself, are awful yet they choose to leave it that way so c'est la vie.

[brizee]

http://www.freep.com/comments/articl...ns-public-D-C-

http://www.freep.com/comments/articl...-more-than-man

I love the fact that individuals with such clearly "special" intellects purport to be in anyway superior to someone.

The fact that they have to live the rest of their lives as themselves is punishment enough.