Let me introduce you to Machol's First Law of Online Entropy, which states:
As some of you may know. Popular Science has turned off its comments section for articles. You can read about this here:The longer an online conversation goes, the more likely it will drift into chaos and incivility.
Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments
Here is part of what they said:
And this was further explained in PC Magazine:A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
Unfortunately OptiBoard is not immune to this rising tide of incivility. In fact, as Machol's First Law of Online Entropy implies, this slide into incivility is inevitable in today's online world. This unrelenting anger, intolerance is undoubtedly bad for OptiBoard and its members. The question for OptiBoard members then is, what should we do about this? As I replied to Wes's thread here:With all due respect to fans of love, science is in fact the universal language. Science explains what gave birth to the universe and it will ultimately explain what ends it. And while there are so many things we don't know, the great thing about science is that it's built on a foundation of facts that have been studied, scrutinized, and dissected for over a thousand of years. Science is one of the safest bets in the universe.
So you can imagine how the editors of Popular Science feel when they publish a story based in indisputable scientific fact, and it is ripped to shreds in the comments section by those who outright reject scientific fact in favor of their politically and religiously-motivated agendas.
Consequently, the 141-year-old publication announced last week it will no longer allow comments on new articles, declaring "comments can be bad for science." However, like any good scientist, it didn't just let the decision rest on that one statement; it cited a study that showed rather convincingly how negative, uncivil, and downright vitriolic comments can dramatically skew a reader's perception of the story being presented.
The problem is that those rational and intellectual voices are being heavily diluted by spammers and crazies. Unfortunately, that behavior isn't just reserved for commenting sections of scientific and political publications—it's everywhere. One only has to spend a minute in the comments section of a movie site like Ain't It Cool News or BuzzFeed's celebrity section or even a tech review to die a little inside. And that's precisely why I don't read comments anymore (save for those on my own articles, which I consider part of my job as a writer). And while I'm sure Gawker will continue to invest millions in its user-generated snark machine, I still believe the commenting system as we know it is broken.
I have some ideas about this but before I share them I would like to know what advice and suggestions you have. I realize it's impossible to satisfy everyone and it's a waste of my time to even try any more. Let me know your thoughts.The sad thing is that when I try to ask believe to behave and stop the bickering, I get accused of 'censorship' and 'heavy-handed' moderation and 'violating' people's rights'. And when I don't do anything, people blame me for allowing bitter and angry people to post on the forums. The fact is that I can't win no matter what I do. Unfortunately this is a sad sign of the times. Civil discourse is a thing of the past. People use their anonymity to post things without any repercussions whatsoever, which tends to bring out the worst in people.
Thank you.
Bookmarks