Mainstream news sites have all but killed comment sections on articles:
With continuing Internet censorship, is there a place left you can voice an unpopular opinion without public backlash?
This word censorship does not mean what you think it means.
Why do you think you should be entitled to voice unpopular opinions publicly without a backlash? Do you think others should be censored to protect your feelings?
At any rate, comment sections on news sites have as much insight and intelligence as graffiti on a cubicle wall.
but they are so much fun to read…
[quote]debraD wrote:
Why do you think you should be entitled to voice unpopular opinions publicly without a backlash? [/quote]
YES. On the Internet - comment sections, internet forums, 4chan etc. Truth is, you aren’t actually anonymous even if you think you are.
[quote]debraD wrote:
Do you think others should be censored to protect your feelings? [/quote]
NO
[quote]debraD wrote:
At any rate, comment sections on news sites have as much insight and intelligence as graffiti on a cubicle wall. [/quote]
That’s not true but yes there are many troll comments.
Did you follow the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case? At one point, CNN was deleting all pro-Zimmerman anti-Trayvon comments. It’s not always to avoid trolling, but to only allow a SINGLE opinion to prevail.
If you read a lot of Internet articles, you’ll also notice the top voted comments will at times completely eviscerate the premise of the article.
Ridding comment sections are about two things 1) promoting a single opinion above all others and 2) to hide the stupidity and bias of article writers and their employers.
[quote]debraD wrote:
Why do you think you should be entitled to voice unpopular opinions publicly without a backlash? [/quote]
The Internet has been a great way to share and communicate information, opinions of all kinds. The anonymity factor has played a large role to allow for this in some ways.
I think it’s important to protect this medium of communication… even if it means allowing trolls to voice their opinions.
I don’t know if “entitled” is the right word here.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
Why do you think you should be entitled to voice unpopular opinions publicly without a backlash? [/quote]
YES. On the Internet - comment sections, internet forums, 4chan etc. Truth is, you aren’t actually anonymous even if you think you are. [/quote]
So exactly what kind of backlash are you talking about? Your OP sounded like you didn’t like getting unpopular comments voted down. An example?
You forgot the the actual number one: Cleaning up the mess of useless ranting from internet morons.
But to my original point, you don’t actually understand what censorship means. If the gov’t prevented you from creating and distributing your own site or publication provide unpopular views that would be censorship. CNN or any other news site choosing to run their site as they see fit to fulfill their commercial purposes is not censorship. It is a business making business decisions.
Any business running a web site has the right to control the content on their pages and moderate as they see fit. If that means promoting their opinion and hiding thier bias then that’s what they are free to do and you are free to create your own forum to give your opposing view. You do not have a right to have space on CNNs pages anymore than you have a right to have your opinion printed in ink in the NYT.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
Why do you think you should be entitled to voice unpopular opinions publicly without a backlash? [/quote]
The Internet has been a great way to share and communicate information, opinions of all kinds. The anonymity factor has played a large role to allow for this in some ways.
I think it’s important to protect this medium of communication… even if it means allowing trolls to voice their opinions.
I don’t know if “entitled” is the right word here.
[/quote]
Unless someone is preventing you from paying for your own server space and hosting your own pages, you are free to have as many opinions as you wish. What you aren’t ‘free’ to have is the server space of popular sites if they don not wish to host your opinions. They are not public commodities, they are commercial sites operating for the purpose of creating revenue, not as a public service.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
but they are so much fun to read…[/quote]
X2
Sometimes the comments are better than the vid and more entertaining.
[quote]debraD wrote:
Unless someone is preventing you from paying for your own server space and hosting your own pages, you are free to have as many opinions as you wish. What you aren’t ‘free’ to have is the server space of popular sites if they do not wish to host your opinions. They are not public commodities, they are commercial sites operating for the purpose of creating revenue, not as a public service.
[/quote]
I have a feeling that killing the comments is actually going to decrease the clicks, and thus their revenue.
Even from a legitimate news-gathering standpoint, I’d expect that some articles/videos are posted entirely to spark some controversy so the reporters can mine the comments for new leads.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
Why do you think you should be entitled to voice unpopular opinions publicly without a backlash? [/quote]
The Internet has been a great way to share and communicate information, opinions of all kinds. The anonymity factor has played a large role to allow for this in some ways.
I think it’s important to protect this medium of communication… even if it means allowing trolls to voice their opinions.
I don’t know if “entitled” is the right word here.
[/quote]
On the anonymity point: at least in this country, the only real consequence of voicing unpopular opinions while not anonymous is social disapproval. So I don’t think you you are protecting anything but pussies who cannot stand behind their honest political views by protecting anonymous space. If these dissenting views are so important then make a website with your name on it and grab a spine and speak. Otherwise it’s just armchair shit slinging hiding behind an avatar.
If you were to talk about real persecution for speaking out against oppression then sure, but that is NOT what we have going on in comment sections.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
Unless someone is preventing you from paying for your own server space and hosting your own pages, you are free to have as many opinions as you wish. What you aren’t ‘free’ to have is the server space of popular sites if they do not wish to host your opinions. They are not public commodities, they are commercial sites operating for the purpose of creating revenue, not as a public service.
[/quote]
I have a feeling that killing the comments is actually going to decrease the clicks, and thus their revenue.
Even from a legitimate news-gathering standpoint, I’d expect that some articles/videos are posted entirely to spark some controversy so the reporters can mine the comments for new leads.[/quote]
That might be true but that isn’t the point. There isn’t any censorship going on.
I like reading comments for the lolz too but I’m not going to pretend they actually have any political value.
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
Unless someone is preventing you from paying for your own server space and hosting your own pages, you are free to have as many opinions as you wish. What you aren’t ‘free’ to have is the server space of popular sites if they do not wish to host your opinions. They are not public commodities, they are commercial sites operating for the purpose of creating revenue, not as a public service.
[/quote]
I have a feeling that killing the comments is actually going to decrease the clicks, and thus their revenue.
Even from a legitimate news-gathering standpoint, I’d expect that some articles/videos are posted entirely to spark some controversy so the reporters can mine the comments for new leads.[/quote]
That might be true but that isn’t the point. There isn’t any censorship going on.
I like reading comments for the lolz too but I’m not going to pretend they actually have any political value.
[/quote]
Yeah, I agree it’s not censorship.
Somewhat stretching the analogy, but:
a given website = private property
the ‘internet’ = public property
But for some reason, I don’t think most people realize that.
[quote]debraD wrote:
So exactly what kind of backlash are you talking about? Your OP sounded like you didn’t like getting unpopular comments voted down. An example? [/quote]
If someone voices an unpopular opinion under their real name on the internet and their employers catch wind, they could very well lose their job.
With places such as comment sections, 4chan, Internet forums, people who share unpopular opinions at least have a place to communicate with like minded people.
[quote]debraD wrote:
You forgot the the actual number one: Cleaning up the mess of useless ranting from internet morons.[/quote]
Why must they do this?
[quote]debraD wrote:
But to my original point, you don’t actually understand what censorship means. If the gov’t prevented you from creating and distributing your own site or publication provide unpopular views that would be censorship. CNN or any other news site choosing to run their site as they see fit to fulfill their commercial purposes is not censorship.
It is a business making business decisions.
Any business running a web site has the right to control the content on their pages and moderate as they see fit. If that means promoting their opinion and hiding thier bias then that’s what they are free to do and you are free to create your own forum to give your opposing view. You do not have a right to have space on CNNs pages anymore than you have a right to have your opinion printed in ink in the NYT.[/quote]
Sure, I bet this is in part a business decision.
However, the combination of government surveillance (after the NSA scandal I wouldn’t be surprised if the Canadian Government is doing something similar) and removal/moderating of comment sections on mainstream news sites, the avenues to voice your opinion (if it is unpopular) are quickly closing.
Some of these opinions are being moderated aren’t even offensive. I mean science websites moderating anti-climate change comments. Really?
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
Why do you think you should be entitled to voice unpopular opinions publicly without a backlash? [/quote]
The Internet has been a great way to share and communicate information, opinions of all kinds. The anonymity factor has played a large role to allow for this in some ways.
I think it’s important to protect this medium of communication… even if it means allowing trolls to voice their opinions.
I don’t know if “entitled” is the right word here.
[/quote]
On the anonymity point: at least in this country, the only real consequence of voicing unpopular opinions while not anonymous is social disapproval. So I don’t think you you are protecting anything but pussies who cannot stand behind their honest political views by protecting anonymous space. If these dissenting views are so important then make a website with your name on it and grab a spine and speak. Otherwise it’s just armchair shit slinging hiding behind an avatar.
If you were to talk about real persecution for speaking out against oppression then sure, but that is NOT what we have going on in comment sections.[/quote]
WRONG
I enjoy being gainfully employed.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Sure, I bet this is in part a business decision.
However, the combination of government surveillance (after the NSA scandal I wouldn’t be surprised if the Canadian Government is doing something similar) and removal/moderating of comment sections on mainstream news sites, the avenues to voice your opinion (if it is unpopular) are quickly closing.
Some of these opinions are being moderated aren’t even offensive. I mean science websites moderating anti-climate change comments. Really?[/quote]
For YEARS, news websites just reported the news, without any of this “audience participation” stuff. There wasn’t any way to voice your opinion at all on the news sites themselves.
Then with this whole Web 2.0 trend, especially the increase of social media, comment sections started to appear everywhere. My guess is there were lots of meetings where the real reason for doing it was “but everyone else is doing it”. It gave them the right to say that they’re cutting edge or whatever.
Now that that’s less of an issue, and there’s plenty of outlets for discussion – e.g., facebook, twitter – where people can link back to the original article, it seems to make less and less business sense for the news sites to maintain their comment sections.
They still get the clicks (from the links), the search engine placement (from the links), and their audience still has a place to discuss and joke about things (on the social media sites)… but they don’t have to be the ones responsible for hosting it. This makes things easier from a legal perspective too.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
Why do you think you should be entitled to voice unpopular opinions publicly without a backlash? [/quote]
The Internet has been a great way to share and communicate information, opinions of all kinds. The anonymity factor has played a large role to allow for this in some ways.
I think it’s important to protect this medium of communication… even if it means allowing trolls to voice their opinions.
I don’t know if “entitled” is the right word here.
[/quote]
On the anonymity point: at least in this country, the only real consequence of voicing unpopular opinions while not anonymous is social disapproval. So I don’t think you you are protecting anything but pussies who cannot stand behind their honest political views by protecting anonymous space. If these dissenting views are so important then make a website with your name on it and grab a spine and speak. Otherwise it’s just armchair shit slinging hiding behind an avatar.
If you were to talk about real persecution for speaking out against oppression then sure, but that is NOT what we have going on in comment sections.[/quote]
WRONG
I enjoy being gainfully employed.
[/quote]
That’s amusing. The images in that article feature one of T-Nations’ very own authors.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
Why do you think you should be entitled to voice unpopular opinions publicly without a backlash? [/quote]
The Internet has been a great way to share and communicate information, opinions of all kinds. The anonymity factor has played a large role to allow for this in some ways.
I think it’s important to protect this medium of communication… even if it means allowing trolls to voice their opinions.
I don’t know if “entitled” is the right word here.
[/quote]
On the anonymity point: at least in this country, the only real consequence of voicing unpopular opinions while not anonymous is social disapproval. So I don’t think you you are protecting anything but pussies who cannot stand behind their honest political views by protecting anonymous space. If these dissenting views are so important then make a website with your name on it and grab a spine and speak. Otherwise it’s just armchair shit slinging hiding behind an avatar.
If you were to talk about real persecution for speaking out against oppression then sure, but that is NOT what we have going on in comment sections.[/quote]
WRONG
I enjoy being gainfully employed.
[/quote]
lol what a retarded example.
You have guys standing in their avatar WEARING their firefighting get up and saying stupid shit. They are representing the fire department when they do that and are idiots for not realizing that.
You really need to go back and understand what ‘free speech’ actually is. I’ll tell you what it isn’t: It isn’t the right to talk like an asshole and not have any consequences.
i only read this thread to get a glimpse of our hot Canadian, Deb~
does that make me a bad person?
[quote]debraD wrote:
You have guys standing in their avatar WEARING their firefighting get up and saying stupid shit. They are representing the fire department when they do that and are idiots for not realizing that. [/quote]
The point here is that there’s very good reason for having anonymous areas of the Internet, one of which being comments on articles. A lot of information would never’ve been shared without it.
For instance, a lot of steroid related information is now widely available when before, the only way to access such information was ‘knowing a guy’ at your gym.
[quote]debraD wrote:
You really need to go back and understand what ‘free speech’ actually is. I’ll tell you what it isn’t: It isn’t the right to talk like an asshole and not have any consequences.
[/quote]
That’s what the internet is for.
[quote]debraD wrote:
lol what a retarded example.[/quote]
WOW.
You are using abelist language, I’m offended and am going to report this to your employers.
Please educate yourself
[quote]LoRez wrote:
For YEARS, news websites just reported the news, without any of this “audience participation” stuff. There wasn’t any way to voice your opinion at all on the news sites themselves.
Then with this whole Web 2.0 trend, especially the increase of social media, comment sections started to appear everywhere. My guess is there were lots of meetings where the real reason for doing it was “but everyone else is doing it”. It gave them the right to say that they’re cutting edge or whatever. [/quote]
And things have changed. All sorts of pieces of information are now shared that wouldn’t’ve been possible without anonymous type communication.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Now that that’s less of an issue, and there’s plenty of outlets for discussion – e.g., facebook, twitter – where people can link back to the original article, it seems to make less and less business sense for the news sites to maintain their comment sections.
They still get the clicks (from the links), the search engine placement (from the links), and their audience still has a place to discuss and joke about things (on the social media sites)… but they don’t have to be the ones responsible for hosting it. This makes things easier from a legal perspective too.[/quote]
Right but that still kills your anonymity. There are sites dedicated to collecting FB discussions and posting them such as failbook. On top of that, Zuckerberg is data mining all our accounts.