On feeding the trolls, and a new NBR comments system
"You can hate what people say but defend their right to say it. That's what sets democracy apart. [InternetNZ CEO Vikram Kumar]"
Featured commentOn Thursday at InternetNZ’s Nethui, Peter Griffin ran a session on “trolling”, or how to handle abusive commenters whose whole purpose in life is to bait others
At one point in his session, Peter invited me to say a few words on how NBR ONLINE handles comments from readers.
Taking the mic, I was unsurprised to see a lot of hostile faces in the Sky City Convention Centre – where last year at the same event Rod Drury laid into NBR’s anonymous comments policy (with a cheerful lack of irony, several in the “anti-troll” camp immediately slagged me off on Twitter). Many people don’t like NBR’s post-live, moderate later policy; those who have copped flack in NBR comments often throw some pretty raw opinions my way, and I can appreciate their anger.
But it was a good chance to re-iterate why NBR allows anonymous comments, and to point out some new comment features we’ve introduced on the site recently.
The key point is that NBR believes whistleblowers (who often first break cover in comments) are crucial to democracy, and crucial to good business coverage (while NBR is pro-business, it is not mindlessly so; often a dose of tough love is in order – as when a commenter pointed out some curious fine print to Xero’s annual report).
People often say, Why not make commenters register, even if their names are not published?
The answer: whistleblowers will only let loose if they know their comments are truly anonymous.
In terms of general comments, NBR’s publisher has a strong commitment to free speech (a principle that everybody across the political spectrum should embrace).
Establishment threatened
The Herald and Stuff censor comments by default, eventually letting some through.
NBR publishes all comments live (bar those blocked by profanity and spam filters).
Sure, some are pretty blunt, but that’s the price of freedom of speech – you’ve got to take the crunchy with the smooth.
NBR doesn’t tolerate mindlessly abusive comments. Contrary to popular belief, dozens are deleted in a typical day as the author of each story, and chief sub-editor Wayne Butler monitor posts (automated alerts go to several NBR staff each time a comment is left).
We’ve also recently introduced a “Report this comment” button. That doesn’t necessarily mean a comment you report will get deleted, but it will get a second look from Wayne and the reporter concerned.
Someone in the Nethui audience asked why we don’t delete comments from company’s slagging each other off. Sometimes we do if, if they’re defamatory. But otherwise, it’s patronizing to think readers can’t recognise a self-interest comment for what it is.
On a more positive note, regular readers will have noticed a number of other enhancements to NBR Comments.
By popular demand, there are now threaded conversations (putting a reply to a comment immediately below it).
While still anonymous, comments are now numbered, so at least you can refer to a specific post.
You can now also like or dislike a comment, the better for people to immediately identify a hot area of discussion.
And if you leave a particularly clever or insightful comment, you might find it gets featured on our home page.
Some readers do put their names to their posts. Good on them. It means their words carry a lot more weight. But you also want to know when, say, “Seeby Woodhouse” is the real Seeby Woodhouse. To that end, we’re also hoping to add verified comments shortly.
If you’ve got a suggestion on how we can further improve NBR comments (he typed, biting his lower lip), feel free to leave a reply below.
Back at the Nethui, Griffin noted that the US state of Arizona and the UK parliament are both looking at possible legislative remedies for trolling.
I had to shoot out before the end of the discussion as news of a certain telco deal broke, but Griffin reports the general mood of Thursday's audience was that self-regulation was a better option.
That's not palatable to some.
But as NBR publisher Barry Colman has noted, " It's interesting how freedom of speech always horrifies The Establishment when it is freely practised.”
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions50
How is Barry Colman not "The Establishment"?
[John Key's top press secretary refusing to take calls from NBR would be one indication. Dates from: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/john-key-s-captain-panic-pants-128900 - CK]
I applaud free speech but think readers may not differentiate between reporting and comment content on the site so it just drags nbr down.
Not taking calls from nbr...I think that is worrying for readers as it means the paper doesn't have access to those in power. Alienating people does not mean good reporting by default. It could mean bring viewed as a joke or irrelevant.
I think any paper can live without access to spin doctors. NBR's press gallery contingent has direct access to John Key at his weekly post-cabinet briefing.
Mostly, I don't see eye-to-eye with Barry Colman on how he chooses to operate as a publisher. But I absolutely agree with and support his commitment to freedom of speech and with no ifs, ands, or buts. I am not aware of any other media business in NZ that has freedom of speech as a core business principle - and tries to practice what they preach.
Yep, some comments on NBR articles read like a script from talk-back radio - the absolute low-end of commentary. And the comments can be hurtful. So what? Even idiots should have a right to have their say, unfettered by what some self-styled editor - usually an idiot with different stripes - thinks is "appropriate".
NBR practice on comments is as close as possible to correct for practicing freedom of speech. Keep it. Those who complain about this either have something to hide, or seek to limit the interchange of ideas and information to suit their own personal tastes and biases.
Alright - there will undoubtedly be those who will try to argue against freedom of speech and how NBR should restrict comments. I await those hurtful and unhelpful arguments. :) :)
That's right yoy doofus.
If it's not broken don't fix it guys - this is the only place to comment in the entire New Zealand press where freedom of speech rules.
Not to mention the sudden spike in NBR online readership the day the commenting feature was enabled.
Are these comments truly anonymous though? For example, if I am logged in to my nbr online membership can nbr personnel see my email address ( or easily check internally to find it?)
Alternatively, can they see the ip address and use it to track down a potential scoop?
With a lot of leg work, we can find a commenter's IP address in our site logs, yes.
But there are lots of companies with IP subs - and some of them have hundreds or even thousands of employees (see our latest brag list here: http://www.nbr.co.nz/sites/default/files/images/IP_SUBAD_July11.pdf) and of course the technically discerning whistleblower could simply leave their comment from an internet cafe, or any computer that's not their own.
And what about when logged into my nbr online account? How do you see that?
Sorry, nothing earth-shaking here, Chris. The whole being somewhat less than the sum of its parts.
NBR's featured articles -- and attendant comments -- are always ephemeral; its lifespan no longer than that of a mayfly. The turnover rate of the many-and-diverse articles, is that it's hard to see how someone can complain of being defamed, especially, if the poster is 'Anonymous'.
What many readers find irritating, is NBR's practice of enabling the Comment feature, only to disable it along with the wholesale deleting of the posters' comments? (The numerous articles on Guy Hallwright, come to mind).
I'm trying to figure, if this enable-then-disable practice, is a litmus test to gauge the pooling of prevailing sentiment; and, if it coagulates in a way not to NBR's liking, then, it's disabled.
Really, for any post to evoke that resonance of verisimilitude with a reader, the poster can't be Anonymous. Every poster should have a verifiable email address with NBR; whether, using a real name or a pseudonym.
Yes, comments are often disabled on court stories - right off the bat, or if commenters stray into legally dubious territory.
NBR promotes free speech as much as possible, but we also can't have Nevil doing jail time if we fail to follow the laws of the land.
The intrinsic weakness with NBR's Comment section, is that it is possible for one person to post multiple comments; either, as Anonymous and/or using pseudonyms.
Also, there seems to be a healthy dose of caprice, when it comes to publishing posts and then deciding to delete them. Can't help but believe, that a sharp elbow in the ribs to NBR's editor, more often than not, is the real reason why comments vanish into the ether. A particular case comes to mind, with there being a certain provider of useful business info, not too happy seeing their boy being pilloried by your readers.
Most comments posted, come with the patina of put-down and varying degrees of -- your word -- "abuse". Maybe, NBR should only permit comments from their paid-up subscribers. Hell, just erect a total pay wall to keep the Unwashed out, altogether.
The ''Like and Dislike" feature is of limited value, because those that respond are so few.
What about a few months ago when NBR was getting trolled over its puff piece on its new weekend revamp? Hiow come you deleted all those comments against when you don't do the same for other companies and people commented on? Freedom of speech not so free when embarrasses NBR perhaps?
Despite bearing the brunt of some anonymous comments, the benefits on balance makes me support the views of iFree #5.
I wonder if people appreciate that there are degrees of anonymity online. Remaining truly anonymous in all circumstances requires a fair degree of sophistication and technical knowledge.
An anonymous comment in NBR or some other website leaves them only with your IP address. In most cases, that's meaningless so anonymity is maintained. There are some exceptions, for example see http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/2675423/DOC-worker-edits-Wikipedia where the organisation was identified.
However, break the law and things change. The police and spooks have the resources, in most cases, to connect the IP address to a person.
I do fully understand when people say they are concerned that "anonymity confers power without responsibility" and "anonymity undermines the goal of open and free debate". It's like freedom of speech- you can hate what people say but defend their right to say it.
That's what sets a democracy apart.
Boobs.
It's John Key's fault.
Ken Ring was right.
The government should buy every business in the country to build up their assets.
He/She is clearly guilty (ignoring the evidence)
I'm a legal expert/worked in this field/heard a rumor that...
First, congratulations on your support for live commenting. Herald censorship is gutless and blatantly self-protecting while both it and Stuff are hopelessly delayed.
Though I use my own name I don't object to anonymity. However the implementation that leaves every comment and commenter unlabelled is diabolical. Numbering the posts will help if the numbers don't change but identifying which commenter is saying what in a thread will still be a problem.
Some take being anonymous too seriously. Yes, it is good to have a forum for whistle blowers but most Anonymous posters are simply stating their political views, so why be anonymous?
Are they ashamed of their views or of themselves?
Anonymous trolls are very brave behind a keyboard.
Anonymity for some is more comfortable because (1) NZ is a little village and its all too easy for many to know the personal business and views of all. And one's personal views can and will be held against them - by spiteful employers and control-freak government departments. No I'm not paranoid. NZ is a country where for ages employers large and small "restructure" their organisation and use that as an excuse to get rid of poor performing employees. Why not tell employees directly they are no good and to leave? In a village society, its very hard to tell your neighbour or your cousin.
(2) In on-line commentary on a news item or opinion piece, who cares whether the author has been accurately identified? How hard is it for an author to set up an email account under a pseudonym? Are you the Damien Grant who writes tabloid trash columns? Is Alan Wilkinson the guy from Bay of Islands or the guy from Christchurch? How would I really know and why would I care?
(3) In the context of on-line comments, it's the ideas that count. Accept that authorship will be impossible for the average reader to verify. Why even ask for this? On-line commentary is not an opinion poll. It's not the picture of truth. All it can do is - maybe - generate some ideas or discussion. Anonymity helps that to happen.
You obviously haven't been an employer and had to deal with the legal tightrope required to fire bad employees. Restructuring is much shorter and safer. Blame the law, not the employers.
If I am having a discussion with someone online it is much easier and more productive if I know which line of argument is coming from which commenter. Just as when you are talking face to face you know how to be more relevant if you have a context rather than just a single isolated comment. I don't care whether the identifier of the commenter is a real name or not but I do care that no-one else usurps that identifier - at least within a single thread.
Yes. I am that damien grant.
does it give you a frisson of excitement to trash talk me as you cower behind your silly name?
What you just said will not get you into any trouble, you are simply a cowardly troll to gutless to put your name out there, a winner who gets their jollies slagging off those of us willing to put our real names to our views.
You have a nice day now.
Who is Damien Grant?
I get that a lot.
I am (anonymously) not surprised at all that you do.
To the wise guy who reported "Who is Damien Grant?" - that was a valid comment. It's been left on the site in the hope that another reader can provide an answer.
I have a practical problem,ie,where there are several anonymous comments it is often difficult to identify the one to which you are replying.
Perhaps it would be possible to have those commenting as "anonymous to identify themselves as "anonymous 1,anonymous 2, etc"?
liberte
Comments are now now listed as #1 anonymous, # 2 anonymous etc in the order the come in, so you now identify a person by their number, if not their name.
But that doesn't link comments from the same commenter. They will all look like separate sources which makes debate difficult.
Yes, this is one of the issues I have.
trolling is caused by perceived anonymity.
Bit like the heckler hiding at the back of a crowd.
Enjoy being anonymous online while it lasts; I expect you have 3 or 4 years left before your ability to hide online will be removed.
Freedom is a very precious thing as is the right to express an opinion, even if there are some bad apples out there, hell bent on trolling. New Zealand is a surprisingly democratic place and this is a very VERY very scarce commodity as governments/corporates seek to erode online freedoms.
Let's be honest here for a moment Chris. Trolls or not, you actually love the attention. The fact that people actually take the time to reply to something you have written is beyond belief. Your Mother must be so proud. Note, I didn't actually read the article, I just skipped to the comments part.
No, personally I would prefer all comments to go into a moderation queue so ones that were too abusive or defamatory could be weeded out before going live (and still completely anonymous). But I can appreciate the free speech philosophy behind the current approach.
And full marks to your ghost writer. They are doing an outstanding job.
The recent headline
"Dirty Dairying gets Cleaner" was a case in point. It was populist and demonstrably wrong.
But it was the critic of the headline that got "moderated" (read censored). But fair enough; at least it got people to read the article and perhaps to consider the comments which suggested that you got it wrong.
You're onto it, 10/10 :-)
While supporting Barry Colman's views on freedom of speech, some of the above comments illustrate how, in the wrong hands, it can be wasted.
But don't let that deter anyone...
What about an opt-in moderation? Eg: when you moderate, classify the degree of stupidity, eg: "excellent", "good", "idiot", "drivelling idiot", "NZ First Voter".
Then let paid subscribers set the minimum level of intelligence they are willing to read.
I don't suppose someone could provide a definition of 'defamation' for the non-lawyers in the audience. Ta.
One further comment, abolish the "Dislike" button since it is completely meaningless. No-one knows why it got pushed and from my observation it carries absolutely no useful information.
Perhaps it amuses morons who can't conceive of or construct a coherent counter-argument but why do you have to amuse morons?.
I dislike this comment very much.
Do you have a reason or merely a mindless collection of dislikes?
Sadly, the blogosphere is an oasis for dehydrated drongos and illiterates.
While largely subscribing to Damien's argument, I would rather know who I am debate/scrapping with, I think NBR's policy in this area works well. I post under my own name, these days, previously under the handle Tribeless, as I'm 'out there' with my blog anyway, and just haven't got the energy for subterfuge, but I can choose whether to interact with an anonymous or not, and you're right, Chris, without that ability you can whistle goodbye to whistle-blowers: the media must keep that avenue open for a free press (and that's why it annoyed me so much when Judith Collins rolled you over disclosing sources to SFO - that should have been a line in the sand death battle for you in the press). Perhaps the one point missed above though is that this is not a freedom of speech issue: NBR owns this site, so can do anything they want regarding a comments policy. Personally, I only think freedom of speech is concerned when applied to government, as whatever venue is being talked about then, my tax has paid for it. Trolling policy on private sites is part of marketing policy, surely. I won't post to Herald now, and read it less and less, because their iron fist of control over comments is almost impossible to get through, it can be so delayed it takes hours or even days for posts to go up, and then they go up in clutches: it's a nonsense. Also, they'll never let a post go up with an external link, particularly, and unforgivably, especially to my own blog - their rationale appears to be to run an internet portal as if the internet doesn't exist. As I've said before, in the comments section, the internet is one big discussion: you're either in, or like Herald, you decide to exclude yourself at risk of turning away your readership. NBR has only ever retroactively deleted one of my posts - still don't know why, mind you ;) - which annoyed me at the time, but then, I get a bit OCD about stuff like that: overall, I don't see how NBR can improve as far as this aspect goes. So, 9/10 from me: would've been 10 if you'd not deleted that post of mine.
Oh, unrelated, but not: I wish you'd install a time edit function for we pedants who die a little bit inside when we read our typos. Um, did I mention my blog? Oh, yes, I did.
See! Typo ... debating/scraping ...
I second all of these comments - both about the Herald's ghastly implementation and the missing typo edit function.
"If you’ve got a suggestion on how we can further improve NBR comments (he typed, biting his lower lip)..."
Who's been reading "Fifty Shades of Gray" then?
Also, allow some form of quote and italic tags.
"If you’ve got a suggestion on how we can further improve NBR comments (he typed, biting his lower lip)..."
Leave it alone, or you will ending up trying to regulate idiots out, and that just ain't possible. All you'll do is increase your workload for no gain.