User comments & online content

Written by Brad McCarty

Monday, 20 June 2011 01:37

Should user comments dictate online content? You might not think about the comments section on a website very often. Heck, more often than not I glance over them as if they don’t exist, except for a few notable exceptions. Between the error-filled ignorance of YouTube comments and the sheer genius that can come in the section on other sites, there’s a wide range of interaction that has, in more recent times, begun to shape the face of how and what online publishers are putting out for the world to see.

In startling contrast to the glancing over that comments often get from readers, publishers toil with them on many different levels. We’ve had some of our most fiery discussions on the subjects of what comments systems to use, the pros and cons of each as well as making certain to interact and engage with our readers inside of them. To put it bluntly, the comments system and how it is used can make or break a site and should never be taken lightly.

But then there’s the other side of the story. What happens when publishers take things a bit too far in their efforts? The LA Times ran into this situation just the other day, spawning the thought to me that there were probably even bigger issues at hand when it came to online comments. So with an idea and some contacts, I went on a search for answers.

Is Hate Speech Free?

The problem that The LA Times had, specifically, was that there was a hefty amount of hate speech that was being interjected into the comments on a particularly hotly-debated post. Without getting into details or opinions here, the post was a story about Israeli security forces firing on pro-Palestinian protestors.

Obviously, this was going to cause some love loss, and that’s exactly what happened:

On Thursday afternoon, comments on the article were restricted, which means they’ll only be posted with a moderator’s approval. A note in the comments section from Reader Engagement Editor Martin Beck says, “It’s our opinion that this discussion has run its course. And moderators will be setting a *very* high bar for approval of any more comments.”

While what the Times did in this situation isn’t inherently dangerous, it does open the door to particular problems. By stating publicly that comments would be moderated for quality, the blog puts itself into the position of judge and jury, rather than allowing its comments to be an open forum for discussion.

The larger issue at hand is that people often times feel that they are granted a right to publish whatever they want in a comments section, regardless of malice, without due recourse. Unfortunately for them, most of them fail to realize that any sort of inalienable right to free speech does not come into play when leaving comments on a site owned by another party. Call it censorship if you’d like, but the editing of rude and inappropriate comments has another, friendlier name — moderation.

In this particular case, the comments section was closed and The LA Times addressed the issue in another post. Without any doubt, however, the site will likely think twice before leaving a comments section open the next time that it feels compelled to publish such a work.

Wagging the Dog

The distaste that is left in a writer’s or publisher’s mouth after a battle such as the one here is second to none. There comes the point when it’s almost a natural progression to think about the reaction to a story before publishing the story itself and then to write the story accordingly. Two places can tell the exact same story in completely different ways, and this is behavior that happens on the Internet on a daily basis.