Some news sites are taking steps to address "nasty user comments". I've put that in quotes because the article goes on to give an example of a racist rant, which goes beyond nasty.
Whether it's discontinuing anonymous comments or requiring commenters to register with a credit card, there's now a recognition by these sites that the online behavior cloaked by anonymity has its downside. On the other hand, some say anonymity allows people to share information they otherwise wouldn't. If you'd like, you can go over and leave a comment at the article about your point of view.
And what about when journalists are asked to respond to comments or make comments on social media themselves that can get them fired? What, if any, boundaries should be set to control usage of sites like Twitter and Facebook?
Related: Sophomoric speech is free speech too
Opinions are a risky business in the Twitterverse
Taking the me from social media
Internet afterlife of a killer raises questions of free speech
Whether it's discontinuing anonymous comments or requiring commenters to register with a credit card, there's now a recognition by these sites that the online behavior cloaked by anonymity has its downside. On the other hand, some say anonymity allows people to share information they otherwise wouldn't. If you'd like, you can go over and leave a comment at the article about your point of view.
And what about when journalists are asked to respond to comments or make comments on social media themselves that can get them fired? What, if any, boundaries should be set to control usage of sites like Twitter and Facebook?
Related: Sophomoric speech is free speech too
Opinions are a risky business in the Twitterverse
Taking the me from social media
Internet afterlife of a killer raises questions of free speech
2 comments:
Newspaper comment boxes are always the place you'll find the most bigoted comments anywhere. If you have an article about Muslims, in particular, the comments will be full of "if they don't like it here/if they want to wear black sacks, let them go back to Pakistan" type comments. They aren't all anonymous.
I did a post yesterday about a phone-in show in London which discussed the Muslim veil issue yesterday morning, and there were two particularly aggressive "let them go home, this is England" types. The host (Vanessa Feltz, who commonly recycles tales from the tabloids to wind up her listeners) didn't challenge them even once even though one of them in particular sounded like he was a BNP type pretending to speak for the "man in the street". They aren't anonymous, but go by unidentifiable names like "Steve from Twickenham", and there's no way of knowing whether the stories peddled are true or not. It seems to be assumed that they are.
Anyone who argues for not restricting this type of communication should remember that the First Amendment specifically excludes "false facts". A lot of our tabloid journalism, radio phone-ins and associated comments are based on quite unsubstantiable and distorted claims that are peddled, and accepted, as facts with consequences for whole sections of the population. Perhaps it can't be legislated against, but it's certainly responsible for a media outlet to
Sorry: I meant to say at the end (must have clicked Publish by accident):
Perhaps it can't be legislated against, but media outlets certainly have no duty to facilitate it, and neither do I as a blogger.
Post a Comment