Silence of the Trolls: Should we mourn the loss of online comments?

(CC0 Public Domain)

Wading through online comments is a notorious part of the Internet experience. They are a guilty pleasure for those of us who get a rise out of reading unfiltered opinions and a cruel torment for anyone who has felt sharp barbs from offensive digital foes. Online comments, however, are increasingly rare as media companies seek new ways to engage with their user base.

Once a key part of any website worth its salt, comments sections are being abandoned at a particularly rapid pace by news organizations that refuse to devote any space or resources to unsolicited and destructive diatribes from unknown sources. It seems like Internet "trolls" are losing a lot of their old turf - those who are amused by disruptive online communications and who specialize in hurling online harassment or abuse will have to find new places to ply their trade.

In the last year, NPR and VICE have joined a long list of media outlets to ban online comments altogether. Sites no longer want to be responsible for monitoring venomous rants or stopping the latest spam about how to make easy money in five minutes or less. Too often, comments became a distraction from the central tasks of journalism like news reporting and storytelling. Many news sites would rather stick to the fundamentals.

Online comments, though, descend from another era of digital history. They hearken back to the bulletin boards and newsgroups and forums that have largely been replaced by social media. I have been using the Internet long enough to have used some of these ancient forms of communication; this experience makes me somewhat sympathetic to the contradictory world of online comments.

While they can empower quacks and bullies, online comments can occasionally provide some illumination and actually serve the purpose they were designed for - especially on sites with small and informed audiences. I have discovered a lot of relevant contextual and historical information buried in the much-maligned comments section that greatly enhanced my understanding of the article or issue at hand.

As someone who likes to hear all sides of a story, I also appreciate how comments can sometimes bring countless perspectives together in one place. This "voice of the people" factor is occasionally rewarding if commentators can maintain a basic level of civility. Personal connections can be made, new insights can be shared and sometimes humour can be enjoyed. In such an environment, even opinions riddled with conspiracy theories and logical fallacies can be worth reading for the valid points peppered throughout.

With that said, I recognize that there is a breaking point. When the sheer volume of online comments on a single story stretches into the thousands, then their individual worth is obscured. When comments are made with a certain level of vitriol and malice, then their subtle value is completely wiped out. After being a major medium of online discourse for many years, comments sections are an easy target for sites looking to make cutbacks and redefine their operations.

Still, I hate to see the Internet clamp down on individual expression and lose its old "Wild West" ways. Something is lost when comments sections shut down and websites abandon part of what distinguished them from the sanitized, top-down world of broadcasting and publishing. The ability to comment freely on stories was almost revolutionary at one time. Losing one more venue to express our thoughts will feel a little bit like corporate censorship simply because we had so much leeway before.

Online trolls have already adapted to the changes that are afoot. No strangers to social media themselves, trolls have thoroughly colonized Facebook and Twitter where many news organizations have redirected their community building efforts.

Turning off online comments is a simple solution to a complex problem. It isn't perfect, but it momentarily silences some of the most vocal trolls who might've been given too much prominence. Still, the Internet will continue to evolve and harmful behaviour will find a new home even if comments sections are all disabled.

While I won't miss the trolls, I will be more than a little sad to see online comments disappear completely. I hope I'm not the only one. Drop me a line and let me know what you think...

Fragmentation: The online rise of the alternative media.

(CC0 Public Domain)

  

The Rebel Media

 

Breitbart

 

Ricochet Media

 

It is common knowledge that the Internet revolutionized news delivery for the masses. Theoretically, in democratic societies where smartphones and high-speed connections are ubiquitous, there is greater access to quality journalism than ever before. This unprecedented availability of verified information and well-reasoned analysis, however, can be quickly lost in the Net's chaotic symphony of noise.

Many people browse online news with divided attention; some are seduced by outrageous clickbait or drawn to more entertaining spectacles before they can get a solid grasp on current events. Consequently, a sizeable percentage of the population completely bypasses the wealth of credible news content available to them in favour of easily digestible lists, simplified "infotainment" and social media shares from their like-minded friends.

Those who still follow the news closely are now exposed to a radically different media landscape that bears very little resemblance to the one that existed in the days before digital. While traditional news organizations still have great influence, the Internet has helped polarize the public and fragment news audiences as people increasingly turn to upstarts that challenge how the news is produced and distributed.

Online, alternative media organizations with obvious ideological agendas are thriving. They have risen to prominence because the mainstream media has, rightly or wrongly, managed to alienate many news consumers who feel like the "full story" is never being told.

Unlike most major news outlets that strive to use objective methods, the alternative media usually takes strong positions that confirm the biases of a political or social base. While adopting certain journalistic methods and appearances, the alternative media often blurs the lines between news and opinion. Some outlets reject established standards completely by crossing the line into activism, propaganda or outright misinformation.

In Canada, two alternative media organizations come to mind that represent opposite ends of the spectrum. Their differences are strikingly obvious, but their simultaneous existence and stark opposition to the status quo reveal a great deal about our current news situation.

 The Rebel Media is a staunchly conservative organization that rails against Canada's "liberal" establishment. The brainchild of Albertan Ezra Levant, The Rebel casually mixes classic Tory fare like gripes about government overspending with sensationalistic headlines like "Canada’s Left demands sanctuary cities as fake refugees flood borders" that provoke readers with black and white assessments of identity politics.

Many critics, including Maclean's, have called The Rebel "Breitbart North" in reference to the far-right American media network. Both outlets are known for their one-sided coverage and controversial stands on race, religion and gender. Their most vehement opponents loudly condemn them for spreading hate and promoting social division.

Conversely, Ricochet Media is a "progressive" news organization that professes to practice independent public interest journalism and places special emphasis upon indigenous and Quebecois coverage. While they appear to be well-intentioned compared to some more provocative newcomers, Ricochet proudly displays its left wing perspectives and employs a very indignant tone throughout its articles in an attempt to downplay contrary opinions.

On the whole, Ricochet's content could be most accurately categorized as advocacy journalism. The Rebel, meanwhile, is best described as a pugnacious Canadian manifestation of American intolerance and extremism. Despite some superficial resemblances, The Rebel's brand of belligerent and emotionally charged commentary is barely recognizable as journalism.

While I think Ricochet would be dismayed by any comparison with The Rebel, both organizations are unquestionably members of the alternative media that would've been unsustainable before the Internet. The Rebel, in particular, has thrived online after similar conservative platforms like Sun News and the Western Standard failed spectacularly in both broadcasting and print.

Now, the alternative media can take advantage of the Internet's reduced startup costs, minimal content regulations and limitless geography that encourages a global reach. The other common denominator between them is the potential goldmine that would've been impossible before e-commerce went mainstream: crowdfunding. Unlike the mainstream media's dependence upon conventional advertising, both Ricochet and The Rebel predominantly rely upon direct contributions from supporters that go far beyond mere subscriptions to specific content.

Ultimately, I think online news consumers are creatures of habit and comfort; they are willing to financially support news organizations that don't disturb them or challenge their assumptions too frequently. This embrace of confirmation bias partially explains how the alternative media has grown in the past few years despite displaying no pretensions about being fair to all sides or even being open to meaningful debates.

I strongly support the freedom of speech, including  people's freedom to express views I personally find indefensible as long as their statements stay within recognized legal boundaries. To repurpose Abraham Lincoln's phrase, I think society has to rely upon "the better angels of our nature" to reject untrue or unethical messages. With that said, when people fall prey to falsehoods, it is the responsibility of journalists and engaged citizens everywhere to defend the truth and deliver the facts to people who are mistaken.

In theory, I applaud the online emergence of the alternative media. In practice, I am disappointed with the divisive and sometimes toxic results.

I hope that the alternative media eventually evolves into a healthier assortment of independent and non-profit news organizations that value journalistic integrity and the public good over shallow partisan interests - even if they maintain a particular slant.

Although it's hard to imagine now while scrolling through The Rebel's website, I have hope that the media's fragmentation will some day lead to better online journalism and a higher standard of Canadian news coverage that complements dominant networks like the CBC.

Newsflash: Net neutrality threatened by Trump.

(© Yong Hian Lim/Veer)

"Trump’s F.C.C. Pick Quickly Targets Net Neutrality Rules"
New York Times.

"What Reporters Need to Know About Covering
Net Neutrality" Nieman Reports.

Net neutrality is one of the founding principles of the Internet. We take it for granted that all web traffic is treated equally by our service providers and distributed to us at the same speed.

With a few exceptions, providers do not discriminate between classical music streams, silly cat videos, Amazon shopping sprees, off-colour Facebook rants or high-stakes business emails. This open model has allowed the Internet to transform almost every aspect of human life through instant communication and the free association of people and ideas.

As a result of this transformation, net neutrality has had a particularly profound effect upon online journalism. The established media's stranglehold on the news was broken by a surge of independent outlets with niche interests; these groundbreaking organizations flourished under the web's worldwide range and lower operating costs. Furthermore, millions of individual voices emerged to report breaking stories from their daily lives and a new era of social media dawned in place of the stagnant monopolies.

Net neutrality, however, is now under serious threat from US President Donald Trump. The combative Republican is a staunch opponent of the Obama-era legislation that strengthened net neutrality and reclassified broadband internet as an essential public utility like electricity.

Ajit Pai, Trump's new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is a former lawyer for the telecommunications empire Verizon. Under Pai's watch, the FCC is taking steps to dismantle the old system to please large corporations and anti-government politicians. By gutting the regulations that preserved the Internet as an open network, Trump's administration could effectively end net neutrality and fundamentally change how the Internet works.

While net neutrality can be complicated to explain, the coming attack against it will hurt competitiveness and stifle innovation on an international scale. Startups, non-profits and private citizens in North America currently enjoy a fairly level playing field where they have affordable access to high quality Internet services.

There are many ways the FCC could make changes to the Internet's existing neutral structure that would be against the public's best interest. For example, they could allow the creation of "fast lanes" where users pay a high price to speedily access content and keep inferior "slow lanes" for average users.

This network "throttling" would be an attempt to capitalize on the public's insatiable demand for streaming sites like Netflix and Youtube that burn up large amounts of bandwidth - services that decimated telecom cash cows like cable television.

Efforts to throttle audio and visual streams could also have huge implications for online news organizations that have created vast amounts of multimedia content to attract a wide digital audience. If average users are unable to consume said content at a steady rate, site traffic and revenues could theoretically plunge.

This action alone is enough to jeopardize the health of countless media companies; business failures or further industry consolidation are the likely consequence. Both outcomes would seriously hurt the quality, diversity and accessibility of online journalism.

While the FCC is an American institution, it's obvious that the United States has played a central role in the Internet's meteoric rise in modern society. America's stance on net neutrality will affect users all over the world and Donald Trump's vendettas against his predecessor's policies could potentially derail decades of technological advancement.

Newsflash: The future will be tense.

"Report tackles 'unsolved riddle' of how to fix ailing news industry" CBC.

"Print is dead. Long live print." Columbia Journalism Review.

(Image by Cara Barer)

For many news organizations, the future isn't pretty. The Internet beheaded their old advertising business model and provided no suitable replacement. Their websites, while wildly popular with users, have never managed to become profitable. Many newspapers give away their valuable content on the web, even though it is very costly to produce and site revenues can't pick up the slack. At first glance, the brave new world of online journalism seems like a nightmare for legacy media companies saddled with lots of physical and financial overhead. Many outlets are in desperate condition after withstanding years of losses.

In Canada, the federal government is considering ways to help its unstable news industry fight back against digital goliaths like Google and Facebook. New taxes and copyright measures designed to level the playing field for domestic news producers are just some of the proposed ways to make Canadian news companies more competitive.

This political intervention, however, will not be enough to turn back the tides of online journalism and keep archaic news organizations alive.

News organizations need to reinvent themselves. Whether they publish in print or online or both, I think that news organizations will be required to focus on their greatest strengths and abandon unsustainable diversions. In some cases, that might mean abandoning breaking news coverage to the online sphere in favour of unique and perceptive analysis that can't be "scooped" by Twitter. In others, that might mean discarding the mindset that digital news delivery is the only thing that matters anymore.

Michael Rosenwald's article "Print is dead, long live print." undercuts the widely-held assumptions that emphasizing online news always makes financial sense and that print is in free fall because people prefer pixels over paper. He argues declining print readership might have a lot more in common with the declining quality of its journalism due to persistent budget cuts. Rosenwald also makes the case that the online news experience has a negative effect on readers themselves; he describes how the digital culture of skimming actually hurts our reading comprehension because it leads to a distracted and fragmented understanding that is hardly retained.

Rosenwald persuasively points out some of online journalism's business flaws, including the observation that the average online news consumer is less loyal and less likely to pay for content. In many cases, online journalism might be a bad investment for papers or magazines that are barely staying solvent.

Will print ever rise again and challenge the Internet's dominance as the 21st century's main information medium? No. But, it can mount a comeback if publishers are willing to differentiate themselves in this era of alternative facts and fake news.

More and more newspapers will be required to return to their roots or face extinction. They will have to realize that they can't do it all on a limited budget and cede some ground to digital-only outlets in an attempt to preserve their core product. This calculating retreat and return to high quality local/regional journalism might be the only way for some companies to stop the bleeding.

Nevertheless, organizations with international reputations and strong financial backers like the Washington Post or New York Times will be able to fill the void and expand their influence in the digital realm. With any luck, it will also finally register with the general public that real journalism needs to be financially supported. Paywalls and subscriptions are one of the only ways for credible news sources to sustainably supply good reporting, writing and multimedia production in an online environment.

There is always the possibility that legacy media organizations are doomed, no matter what. I don't buy it, but change occurs so rapidly these days that it isn't safe to discount any possibility. 

With that observation in mind, the future of journalism is going to be fraught with tension as the old media takes one last shot at coexisting with its leaner Internet rivals.