Blog comments destroy the Internet
Joel on Software (Joel on Software) found the root of all the problems on the Internet : anonymous blog comments.
Before we go into reasoning, disgust, what an idiot Joel is (my reasoning will be soft, you see), let's be clear: Joel is against anonymity, not confidentiality. Confidentiality is the right to browse websites and download so that no one will know what you are doing without a good reason. Anonymity is the right to participate without being tied to your real identity.
In the eyes of Joel (and Dave Winer, whom he quotes), anonymity is destructive. So much so that they both claim that blogs should not allow comments. “You have no right to post your thoughts in addition to strangers. This is not freedom of expression, it is a violation of their freedom of expression. ”
')
In my opinion, this is where the argument went off the rails.
Now, as well as Joel, I subscribe to the Internet Theory of Idiocy by John Gabriel (John Gabriel's Greater Internet # @ &% wad Theory), which defines the problem as Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Idiocy. There is an opinion that this is what leads to many (but by no means all) flame wars and anti-social behavior on the Web can be stifled in the bud if people forcefully use their real names. Forcing people to take responsibility for their actions, this is unreal art - look at eBay - you cannot cure a real sociopath who just wants to make other people's lives miserable. This means that if you force people to recognize what they are saying with their own, then most likely they will see what they are saying.
Let’s leave aside the fact that I don’t know a single blog reader who cannot mentally separate a blog post from its comments. Let us also assume that Joel and Wiener are not thin-skinned egoists who cannot see dissent among their readers.
All right, Joel, don't you like anonymity? Fine. But there is a huge gap between the absence of anonymous comments and the absence of comments at all. It's like a baby coming out of a bath and dripping water onto the floor. By demanding that the counter-arguments be just on another unrelated blog (this is exactly what I’m doing here), you won’t get a dialogue. This is just like the two politicians use ads and and counter-ads on television, instead of having a direct debate. One is more intellectual and valuable than the other, and I think it is quite obvious what it is.
Permission to comment on your blog is like inviting people to your home - this is a little expensive, even if everything is normal. If someone does not comply with propriety, you can throw him out of the house. We call it moderation, and it’s as old as the Internet itself. If this is too troublesome for you, then you can simply not invite people, but do not expose it as some kind of superior morality or highly intellectual decision. Sitting alone in your room and shouting messages out the window is not the best solution to invite someone interesting to the conversation. Just dropping hands and disappointing in the comments is the easiest way out, but absolutely not the best.
Here's a thought, why don't you force people to register before they can comment? There is a whole range of restrictions in the interaction, and the more you complicate the posting, the more the poster will appreciate your login and do everything not to prevent its loss.
As an alternative to banning comments in general, author John Scalzi restricts registration to a forum on his blog two days a month . and he personally checks each poster. Other sites put comments in pre-moderation, and do not allow them to appear on the site until human eyes check them. Others require email verification, verifying that your address is real. And almost everyone cleans out trolls and spam bots as needed.
(Constraints also impede interaction, so there is a line between hindering rogues and restraining normal commentators who simply don’t want to go through several stupid registration steps.)
Of course, comments require care, but this is also an effective way to engage the audience and actually create interactivity, as opposed to dying static content on your monitor. Maintaining a normal Web site is much more complicated than just logging on to Blogger and breaking the keyboard. Success requires attention, as do trolls. This is the price we pay for doing business. Instead of turning off comments, it is more rational to find a way to deal with them.
link to my blog
Before we go into reasoning, disgust, what an idiot Joel is (my reasoning will be soft, you see), let's be clear: Joel is against anonymity, not confidentiality. Confidentiality is the right to browse websites and download so that no one will know what you are doing without a good reason. Anonymity is the right to participate without being tied to your real identity.
In the eyes of Joel (and Dave Winer, whom he quotes), anonymity is destructive. So much so that they both claim that blogs should not allow comments. “You have no right to post your thoughts in addition to strangers. This is not freedom of expression, it is a violation of their freedom of expression. ”
')
In my opinion, this is where the argument went off the rails.
Now, as well as Joel, I subscribe to the Internet Theory of Idiocy by John Gabriel (John Gabriel's Greater Internet # @ &% wad Theory), which defines the problem as Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Idiocy. There is an opinion that this is what leads to many (but by no means all) flame wars and anti-social behavior on the Web can be stifled in the bud if people forcefully use their real names. Forcing people to take responsibility for their actions, this is unreal art - look at eBay - you cannot cure a real sociopath who just wants to make other people's lives miserable. This means that if you force people to recognize what they are saying with their own, then most likely they will see what they are saying.
Let’s leave aside the fact that I don’t know a single blog reader who cannot mentally separate a blog post from its comments. Let us also assume that Joel and Wiener are not thin-skinned egoists who cannot see dissent among their readers.
All right, Joel, don't you like anonymity? Fine. But there is a huge gap between the absence of anonymous comments and the absence of comments at all. It's like a baby coming out of a bath and dripping water onto the floor. By demanding that the counter-arguments be just on another unrelated blog (this is exactly what I’m doing here), you won’t get a dialogue. This is just like the two politicians use ads and and counter-ads on television, instead of having a direct debate. One is more intellectual and valuable than the other, and I think it is quite obvious what it is.
Permission to comment on your blog is like inviting people to your home - this is a little expensive, even if everything is normal. If someone does not comply with propriety, you can throw him out of the house. We call it moderation, and it’s as old as the Internet itself. If this is too troublesome for you, then you can simply not invite people, but do not expose it as some kind of superior morality or highly intellectual decision. Sitting alone in your room and shouting messages out the window is not the best solution to invite someone interesting to the conversation. Just dropping hands and disappointing in the comments is the easiest way out, but absolutely not the best.
Here's a thought, why don't you force people to register before they can comment? There is a whole range of restrictions in the interaction, and the more you complicate the posting, the more the poster will appreciate your login and do everything not to prevent its loss.
As an alternative to banning comments in general, author John Scalzi restricts registration to a forum on his blog two days a month . and he personally checks each poster. Other sites put comments in pre-moderation, and do not allow them to appear on the site until human eyes check them. Others require email verification, verifying that your address is real. And almost everyone cleans out trolls and spam bots as needed.
(Constraints also impede interaction, so there is a line between hindering rogues and restraining normal commentators who simply don’t want to go through several stupid registration steps.)
Of course, comments require care, but this is also an effective way to engage the audience and actually create interactivity, as opposed to dying static content on your monitor. Maintaining a normal Web site is much more complicated than just logging on to Blogger and breaking the keyboard. Success requires attention, as do trolls. This is the price we pay for doing business. Instead of turning off comments, it is more rational to find a way to deal with them.
link to my blog
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/31460/
All Articles