By Mathew Ingram
Many
online publishers and journalists believe that there’s a simple solution to the
problem of internet comments — the trolls, the flame-wars, and so on — and that
is to
require that people use “real” identities, usually by forcing them to login
with Facebook or some other external service.
But as I’ve argued
a number
of times,
doing this only appears to solve the problem, while creating an even larger
one: namely, that by removing the option to be anonymous, media companies will
never hear from a majority of their readers.
A
new survey
conducted recently by the audience-engagement platform Livefyre appears to
reinforce that conclusion. The company — which powers user-content features for
sites run by AOL, CBS and Conde Nast — asked 1,300 web users between 18 and 65
if they have ever chosen to comment anonymously, and why.
Most
of those surveyed said that they responded anonymously (or pseudonymously)
because they didn’t want their opinions to impact their work or professional
life by being attached to their real names, or when they wanted the point of
their comment to be the focus rather than their identity or background. And
close to 80 percent of those surveyed said that if a site forced them to login
with their offline identity, they would choose not to comment at all.
What
that means in practice is that if a site like The Huffington Post or ESPN
requires their users to login
with Facebook or provide a “real” identity in some other way, they are
likely shutting out as many as 80 percent of their readers. While at least some
of these may be trolls or bad actors of some kind, it’s reasonable to assume that
a significant number are loyal members of that site’s community, who may have
something important or worthwhile to contribute. As David Williams, community
manager for CNN Digital, said
in an interview with Managing Communities:
“Anonymous
commenting isn’t the problem. The problem is when commenters feel anonymous. It
is really important to let your community know that you’re listening and that you
value what they have to say… If you don’t pay attention, people will misbehave
until you are forced to pay attention.”
Anonymous comments have value
The
Livefyre survey is a
relatively small sampling of readers, and some of the conclusions — the
fact that only 5 percent of readers login anonymously so they can bully others,
for example — may be suspect, simply because few people are going to admit that
they login specifically to torment other people.
That
said, however, the survey results jibe
with my experience managing comments and community for a large metropolitan
newspaper in a previous life. When I asked our readers about whether they would
comment if the paper implemented a registration system that required a
verifiable identity, a large number said they never would — and they said that
their desire for anonymity was a result of wanting to take part in discussions
about contentious issues like religious freedom, sexual identity and the Middle
East: In other words, important topics where their views might impact their
jobs or their personal life in some way.
As
Livefyre points
out, there are a number of ways that sites can cut down on bad behavior,
including pre-moderation. But the best way — as long-time blogger Anil Dash pointed
out in a post in 2011 — is to actually engage in the comments with members
of your reader community, and even set up ways for them to help you moderate.
Some new-media sites such as the crowdfunded De Correspondent in the
Netherlands see
their commenters as partners rather than antagonists, or use tools like
Gawker’s Kinja platform to make it easier for readers to become contributing
members of the community.
The
bottom line is that by requiring real names, sites may decrease the potential
for bad behavior, but they also significantly decrease the likelihood that many
of their readers will comment. Some may see this as a benefit — fewer comments
to moderate — but it is also a risk, especially
when engagement with a community of readers could mean the difference
between life and death for a media outlet.
Source: https://gigaom.com
No comments:
Post a Comment