This is an interesting article. I tend to agree that site owners need to set limits for what is and isn't acceptable.
But the list of what should and shouldn't be done has some things that I disagree with.
One of the problems with moderators is that it creates the gap that trolls like to exploit. Meta = death, especially when you can whip up an argument between regular posters about the actions of a moderator.
The accountable identities thing is also odd. I've seen plenty of people posting with their real name being absolute arseholes. I think some combination of persistent identity and karma is useful. The identity doesn't need to be shown. So it's anonymous from the point of view of people reading comments, but any up or downvotes go to the person's account and accumulate.
One thing missed in the list is "DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. DO NOT ENGAGE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE IDIOTS. JUST DOWN VOTE AND IGNORE. OR JUST IGNORE." Indeed, this should be emphasised so strongly that people down-vote those who do respond to trolls and idiots. It's intensely disappointing to see long threads on HN where one person has a viewpoint indistinguishable from idiocy or trolling. Sure, try to learn why that person believes the freakish thing they do, but don't waste time trying to convince them they're wrong.
> Because a company like Google thinks it's okay to sell video ads on YouTube above conversations that are filled with vile, anonymous comments.
Anything that can fix YouTube comments would be amazing.
> Because almost every great newspaper in America believes that it's more important to get a few more page views on their website than to encourage meaningful discourse about current events within their community
Controversialism makes page views. It's sad.
Perhaps papers need to stick to 'promoted comments'. Perhaps they need to offer small payment or prizes for best comments? Or they could find two decent commenters and ask them to have a (moderated) discussion?
But the list of what should and shouldn't be done has some things that I disagree with.
One of the problems with moderators is that it creates the gap that trolls like to exploit. Meta = death, especially when you can whip up an argument between regular posters about the actions of a moderator.
The accountable identities thing is also odd. I've seen plenty of people posting with their real name being absolute arseholes. I think some combination of persistent identity and karma is useful. The identity doesn't need to be shown. So it's anonymous from the point of view of people reading comments, but any up or downvotes go to the person's account and accumulate.
One thing missed in the list is "DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. DO NOT ENGAGE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE IDIOTS. JUST DOWN VOTE AND IGNORE. OR JUST IGNORE." Indeed, this should be emphasised so strongly that people down-vote those who do respond to trolls and idiots. It's intensely disappointing to see long threads on HN where one person has a viewpoint indistinguishable from idiocy or trolling. Sure, try to learn why that person believes the freakish thing they do, but don't waste time trying to convince them they're wrong.
> Because a company like Google thinks it's okay to sell video ads on YouTube above conversations that are filled with vile, anonymous comments.
Anything that can fix YouTube comments would be amazing.
> Because almost every great newspaper in America believes that it's more important to get a few more page views on their website than to encourage meaningful discourse about current events within their community
Controversialism makes page views. It's sad.
Perhaps papers need to stick to 'promoted comments'. Perhaps they need to offer small payment or prizes for best comments? Or they could find two decent commenters and ask them to have a (moderated) discussion?