Thank you Channel 3 for Advancing Civility!

So, Neil Heinen’s editorials are not always hard hitting. Getting a board to have a definite agreed upon opinion on a subject without disagreement is probably not always easy, but they got it right on this one! And in the process, helped me make a point about nasty internet comments on other websites, like madison.com or thedailypage.com forum and how they should have a more responsible commenting policy.

Yeah, more on the nasty comments. I apparently unwittingly stepped into it when I wrote this post about military ads on the buses, which was written about at the Cap Times and that led to an apology for the nasty comments which prompted me actually read the comments and to post this about commenters on the internet, and eventually after encouragement from talking to folks I started this petition. Jason Joyce (forum administrator at thedailypage.com forum) then criticized me (and made sure to tag me) on Facebook and started a thread on thedailypage.com forum. I fought back and gave him a dose of his own medicine (yup, I called him an “awful human being”) and he got irritated. And here we are.

Please read this editorial by Neil Heinen. It’s about a family member’s concern over his brother with obvious mental health and AODA issues and the way his situation was treated as a community joke. Of course, I had to look, and Jason Joyce jumped right on board with the ridicule, starting a thread on thedailypage forum. Obviously, after we cut through all the semantics and his criticisms of me not being precise enough for him (yes, I could have been more clear, fire my editor, hell fire me, dock my pay!), he still stands behind thedailypage forum and its commenters and their practices, won’t admit that some of these comments are over the top and has no inclination to change the crap written there.

Many on the forum stand behind him. They want the right to anonymously talk about sucking somoene’s cock. (gross! right?) And it’s fun for Joyce, apparently. However, many other people signed on to the petition and had these more thoughtful comments.

– I’m for more thoughtful restraint and kindness in our internet speech.
– I use my own name when posting. If all user were required to do this, it would result in better comments.
– It’s very troubling to write about one’s own experience (as a poll worker, for example) and to be questioned and doubted at every turn. I’m not well known as a writer, blogger, or commenter, but I have been subjected to the same abuse as those who are well known. Now I do not use the same nasty language back, because I try to be better than that. But it sure is ugly.
– The misinformation and many ad hominem attacks from anonymous and pseudonymous commentators hinder productive discourse.
– I’m coming to the conclusion that, unless the providers of these forums can figure out a way to change the tone, these forums might have no positive purpose and, in fact, add to the thoughtless, attack-like nature of our current political dialogue. Individuals are slowly being trained to believe that there are no downsides to saying any thing that comes to mind. For whatever reason, it didn’t use to be that way. But it is now. Figure this out or shut them down, please.
– I have read personal comments in other media and their authors’ names and addresses have been included: this increases civility, I believe.
– Personal attacks have no place in public discourse and absolutely discourage people from becoming involved and speaking up. The benefits of requiring that real names be used outweighs possible negatives from implementing such a policy.
– This petition talks about abusive comments. In addition to that concern, I think the quality of the discussion would improve if people were required to state their real name.
– You are giving people without the courage to use their own name the opportunity to say things about courageous people that adds nothing but rancour instead of civilised discussion.
– Simply disallowing anonymous comments does not infringe upon anyone’s right of free speech. Abusive personal attacks contribute nothing to our political or social dialog; when in doubt, post the comments, but please develop some standards and then follow them!
– I don’t understand why these vile and irrelevant comments are tolerated. Please create a policy for publishing comments that promotes a culture of civil discourse.
– Express yourself, express your differences, your opinions, your ideas, your concerns, your fears, what makes you angry, what you can’t understand, your outrage, your disgust, your confusion, your frustration, your joy, your solidarity – but don’t use anonymous comments to spread hate, to incite violence, to destroy others, to damage the community.
– Seth Meyers: You invented the Internet? The Devil: Yeah, well I mean parts of it. I invented the comments sections, obviously…. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-the-devil-on-penn-state/1368181
– Sadly, I have long ago not bothered to either read or post a comment to your publication because of the caustic nature of anonymous comments, free from any restraints of decency and reasonable discourse in the market place of ideas. I have always registered for comment sites using my real name. I will not however join in conversations in your publication until anonymous sourcing is discontinued.
– It was just over a year ago that America was left dumbfounded over the vicious shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six bystanders. The attack was the result of a very disturbed man provoked by very careless words. Language matters. Images matter. Free speech, yes. Anonymous, cowardly, hateful, moronic and sensational comments…please. Wake up people. We are better than this. Report real news; and leave this other crap at the curbside where garbage belongs. Yes. You can print my name.
– I write the Madravenspeak column. I think people would be less likely to be rude and flippant – less likely to go on and on repeatedly – and more likely to engage constructively if they used their own name. Our names are on our columns and I identify myself in responding to comments. I also am willing to identify myself when commenting on other people’s work. I think name transparency would improve the quality and tone of the comments and conversations on the articles – making people more accountable. Thanks.
– I agree with this. Not sure why people can’t engage in civil discourse.
– I almost never bother reading your comment sections because they’re so uninformative and vitriolic. Every now and then I check to see what people are saying about an article, and it’s still the same soul-crushing stuff. These comments add nothing to discussion of an issue or to public debate and discourage people like me from getting involved. News sources that require commenters to use their actual, verifiable names have much better comment sections; disagreements happen, but not at anywhere near the level of personal attack that you get with anonymous or pseudonymous users.
– Threats are NOT free speech, they are assault. Free speech is perhaps the most important right we have, but its boundaries lie where it impedes someone else’s right to basic security and safety. Also, you have a right to control what kind of content you allow on your forum. In fact, you have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of your organization by providing an atmosphere free from threats. I trust you will do the right thing here. If you were a radio show and someone called in spewing threats, they wouldn’t get passed the screener. You need to have a screener on your forum, too.
– Let’s not fuel the flames of abject cowardice.
– Public forums should keep the conversation civil. i.e. focus on the issues, not people. Propose insight, solutions, analysis, not personal attacks.
– The internet is a great invention for all the advances in communication it has made possible. Unfortunately, it has also enabled some people to engage in reprehensible behavior without any fear of being exposed, by allowing them to hide behind a wall of anonymity and pseudonymity. Responsible media outlets can easily put a stop to this practice by requiring commentators to provide their real names and blocking comments that clearly violate norms of common decency. It’s done routinely by responsible media outlets, and there’s no excuse for failing to do so.
– I think that frequently publishers who wrestle with this issue are concerned that if they don’t publish every comment, they may be engaging in censorship or restricting free speech. That is certainly a valid concern. I would argue that publishing every comment indiscriminately has the effect of causing thoughtful comments (on both sides of an issue) to be lost in a sea of personal attack comments. Many people who might become engaged with an issue will simply skip the comments, either because of a distaste for wading through vitriol, or because they perceive the comments section as immature and irrelevant. I would also argue that people with genuine, thoughtful, ideas on a topic are discouraged from posting their ideas, either because they don’t want to draw the attention of the haters, or because they don’t perceive the comments section as the appropriate venue for reasoned discourse. In short, I am saying that there is more than one way to engage in cennsorship. 1) You can simply delete material that you find disagreeable. 2) You can leave the material in place but bury it in a sea of additional material. 3) You can encourage people to submit material, but make it clear to them that by doing so they are hanging a big target on themselves. If someone stood up in the audience in the middle of a jury trial and started making personal remarks, that person would rightly be removed from the courtroom. Does that person have a right to their opinion, and the right to express it in public? Sure. Is every public venue therefore required to provide a platform for them to express themselves? Hardly.
– Isthmus can not responsibly defend placing pseudonymous comments on webpage. Cut it out and be a responsible community member.
– The news sites should enforce the same rules they have for letters in their print versions.
– If people want to make anonymous and mean-spirited comments using the internet, they have many opportunities to do so. Why allow them to do so on the website of a reputable news source? Perhaps print and on-line media publications would enjoy more support and readership if you maintained high standards in all forums and discussions.
– Try change with positives. The more publicity you give the negative the more they win. Raise up the good.
– Abusive comments are really a turn off. I stop reading any further when I see those kind of comments are starting after an article.
– I am grateful to live in a country where I can still take a public position on public issues. Whenever I write a statement, I sign my name. However, using a public forum as an opportunity to make harsh anonymous attacks on public officials, particularly using vulgar name-calling, is clearly unacceptable. Allowing this behavior probably minimizes the posts of more respectful people who do not want to subject themselves to such abuse. Public discourse is essential to our democracy. And these modern internet public forums have become as essential to our democracy as town meetings were essential to democracy in our colonial period. We must not allow this modern means of having a community discussion to be destroyed because some in the crowd are allowed to throw eggs and tomatoes.
– Real names is the bottom line minimum that you can do.
– As someone who has been the subject of attacks for my advocacy on behalf of low income people, I urge you to adopt more responsible commenting policies as outlined in this petition. Offensive personal attacks from anonymous or pseudonymous sources are destructive and will deter people from getting involved in their civic community. Please do what is required to make your online forums a place that facilitates civil and respectful dialogue.
– The habit of allowing anonymous posts has created a toxic society. As a manager of an area business, I can see how this has changed our culture from one of friendly (if fierce) discussion to a negative, hateful adversarial relationship. Newspapers have a public trust and represent a key leadership role in the community’s culture. As such, you have a responsibility to set a high standard. I know that the papers will not allow anonymous comments in the printed version, so why allow them on-line? For a stronger community based on real discussion, not spite-filled attacks.
– It is critical for a respectful and functional public discourse that commenters on listserves, blogs and media websites are identifiable. Besides, people should stand by whatever they have to say.
– As a former elected official (a school board member in Saratoga Springs, NY), I believe that the only way to arrive at a consensus on any issue is via a dialogue, of polite discussion, and within parameters of respect and tolerance.
Please invoke a semblance of civility so that we can right the ship of negative personal attacks.
– I read the online version of your paper daily. I often peruse the comments section of each article as well. Although I appreciate exposure to opposing viewpoints, I find that abusive content is all too common. I would hope that the transparency of using one’s real name combined with a strict non-abusive language policy would enhance the dialogue.
– I stopped reading comments a while ago, mostly due to the sheer number of back and forth garbage that occurs between individual anonymemes. When the comments add up to over 200, and only 12 of them add to the discussion, it’s really not worth my time. Please modify the process. Thanks.
– It seems like it is open season on attacking others without any consideration of dialogue and reasonable disagreement. I thought we were more civilized than that.
– I’ve stopped even looking at comments because they are almost always irrelevant and debasing.
– Please require a verified login that uses real information, such as the Facebook login that is now widely available. I stopped reading your comments section ages ago as they are so vitriolic, and consequently spend less time on your page and looking at your advertisements. Thank you
-This type of policy is completely bipartisan and should be standard for all online newspapers and media outlets. The ability to hold public discussion on the Internet comes with new responsibilities. Yours is to keep people accountable to the real world consequences of their actions on agencies, individuals, and public discussion itself. Thank you.
– It is hard to read, and even harder to participate, when comments become mean and condescending. Also, I know people generally don’t go out and fact check, so I would really like it that misinformation is also not posted, opinion is one thing, but to say as fact something that is not true just co-opts the whole dialogue. I know this doesn’t have any thing to do with a commenting policy, but I sent an e-mail to the general managers at our TV stations as part of the flackcheck.org campaign, asking them to refuse third party ads or insist on the accuracy of those they air.
– Isthmus, especially.
– People have anonymity in the polling booth. There are other ways to criticize the government, organizations and corporations without endangering yourself. But a public forum like the comments section of your website have no good reason to cloak the comments, and anonymity only encourages trolls and bullies.
– It is appalling to see people make such hurtful remarks toward people who disagree with them. I hope that we can return to an earlier time when we had civil dialogue among each other.
– If you’re not proud enough of your thoughts to sign your name, perhaps you should work on them before you share them.
– As a individual and part of organizations that have experienced hateful comments following online articles I can say that we need your support to monitor the comments that are coming out on your websites.

Several of the signers who didn’t comment have been the subject of attacks on these pages. Or, people they work with have. Many others are just sick of it. So, do you want the right to anonymously talk about sucking Jason’s cock, or do you agree with the folks above and channel 3?

Note:  Sorry I was crass to make my point – but I needed an example of how it can get that didn’t involve me.  Now the forons can ridicule away . . .  or come here and post with their real names without name calling.