« From the department of Monkeys with Typewriters | Main | This is just smooth » A little bit more on posting07 Aug 2008 05:48 pm You guys have probably noticed that I've deleted a few comments. It isn't a perfect method, but for the moment, it's the best method I have at my disposal to tamp down the nonsense. I strongly believe that if this blog didn't have comments, it would lose about 75 percent of its whatever magic it has. If it were overrun by trolls, it would lose about 50 percent. I don't like deleting people's shit. But I'll do whatever I can to make this a space for civil conversation. Hosting a blog (as I was telling one of the Atlantic online guys) is like have an ongoing dinner party at your house. If I were hosting that party, I wouldn't allow some jackass to just wander in and ruin everyone's good time, so I won't allow it here. There will be some changes in the coming weeks that make moderating discussions easier. But for right now, this is what we have. If you see someone making an ass of himself, please hit that "email Ta-Nehisi" link, and I'll look into it and do what I can. Thanks guys. Comments (27)
I wonder if having your comment deleted costs you McCain points. Or maybe there's some sort of bonus. 
I agree because I often get frustrated when threads veer off topic. I've seen threads at FiveThirtyEight collapse into people re arguing the aftermath of the Civil War.
All in all, MY's blog didn't have a lot of douchey trolls. Not nearly as bad as TPM, which is infested. Petey was an ass, but, at times, he made decent points, and was civilized during basketball-related posts. Don't think we'll see him 'round here much; he tends to obsess on "trust-fund scumbags". At th every least, I don't think Ta-Nehisi fits the trust-fund part. Then there's Al, who used to spend a lot of time on Drum's site. I kind of miss Al. He gave as good as he got. Tim K. was another troll, but I recently found him over at a L.A. Times real estate blog yelling at someone who recently bought a house, for, well, buying a house. Tim K. was MY's resident "get off my lawn" troll. There were also a few race-obsessed trolls who showed up only when MY's posts touched on race. There was one a-hole who was particularly obnoxious (not Sailor), I forget his name, but he posted on any race-themed MY post like clockwork. There was also TLB, who was Latino-immigrant obsessed. Haven't seen him here recently. My concerns are the cretins who hang out in McArdle's neighborhood. Juan and Yancey Ward come to mind. They need to stay out of here. McArdle commenters need to stay where they's from.
I haven't been following along, so I don't know what practices you've been using, but I for one prefer, at minimum, a placeholder saying "comment deleted", rather than mysterious events. Better yet are approaches that permit the curious to figure out why the comment was deleted - either a "comment hidden by proprietor; click to read the hidden comment" type approach, or the more entertaining approach of disemvowelling the comment. Disemvowelling is nice because it mocks the troll, and anyone who really cares can figure out the content of the disemvowelled comment - although if the offense was profanity or abusive language, many of those words already start with a paucity of vowels, so maybe not.
There will be placeholders. Good suggestion.
i don't think you should delete anything. ignorance is self defeating. if some one is making an ass of themself, let them. what harm could come from it. after all, they are only words on a page and words only have power if we give it to them. but its your blog, so run it as you'd like.
"ignorance is self defeating." o rly? Who told you that??
What about the guy at the dinner party who starts shouting that everybody has to stand up and recite the Pledge of Allegiance?
carsick writes: "I agree because I often get frustrated when threads veer off topic. " I never understand this kind of objection. Some of the best stuff in discussions, online or off, comes from veering off topic. Posts are starting points for a discussion, not theme assignments.
if some one is making an ass of themself, let them. what harm could come from it. There are two responses to the trollishly offensive post: So I prefer deleting. It must be done judiciously, but tending a garden of on-topic comments, including natural and organic digressions, is better than letting the gobsense run wild over the good discussion. Then we don't have to try to get everyone on board with ignoring it; Ta-Nehisi ensures it is ignored. (I'm a fan of Al Giardano at NarcoNews, and he has a similar policy.) Also useful for the occasional "no one will read my blog, so I've decided to take over the comments section of some blog people actually click on" troll.
I never understand this kind of objection. Some of the best stuff in discussions, online or off, comes from veering off topic. I agree in principle. But to stick with the dinner party analogy, there's a difference between conversations that naturally veer off into unexpected but stimulating territory, and the guy who barges into every conversation and starts explaining his theory of what was wrong with the Soprano's ending. The former makes the party a success; the latter drives people away.
Deborah says: "But to stick with the dinner party analogy, there's a difference between conversations that naturally veer off into unexpected but stimulating territory, and the guy who barges into every conversation and starts explaining his theory of what was wrong with the Soprano's ending. The former makes the party a success; the latter drives people away." The latter isn't a veer. It's a hijacking. Veering takes more than one poster, generally.
Maybe I am missing the obvious, but can you give us examples of what comments are deletable? Also, what is your criteria for deleting posts? I understand what you are doing in principle, and why you are doing this, but it seems to give some people a leeway to whine, "oh you always delete opposing posts. You just want an echo chamber. You libs are hypocrites. Blah, blah, blah..." Additionally, I want to know that if I point out that someone else's post is stupid (while being on point for the thread), I don't want my comment deleted.
Fighting Words, Most of the post deleted were by one person, who was warned, and they consisted of things along the lines of black men who don't wear suits shouldn't complain if police shoot them, or other racial bullshit. Based on posts of yours I've seen before, I doubt you'll have any worries.
I like your comment policy, and the blog is great.
Fighting Words says: "I want to know that if I point out that someone else's post is stupid (while being on point for the thread), I don't want my comment deleted." Second that. Pointing out stupidity is a secular sacrament.
Matt's comments were heading in the direction of Kevin Drum's. I really doubt Kevin even ever reads his own comments anymore. So I think you should be brutal. If people don't like it they can post on their own darned blogs. Even not-exactly-a-troll types like Petey and Al can suck all the air out of the room. Those guys really should just have their own blogs.
I approve of moderating comments. I've been a regular on certain chat boards, and the better ones moderate. The internet is a strange strange place sometimes. It allows us to circumvent social norms, but some of those social norms exist for very good reasons. People can really be rude online in ways they would never be in real life. Your dinner party comparison is apt. Anyway blogs are not democracies, and that's just fine with me. They're not supposed to be.
"The internet is a strange strange place sometimes. It allows us to circumvent social norms, but some of those social norms exist for very good reasons." One social norm is toleration of dissent, and another is the willingness to listen to and engage with those whose views differ from your own. Most blogs could use more of that. Most blog comment sections become echo chambers where everyone congratulates themselves for sharing the same opinions.
Ta-Nehisis, I wish you more judicious good fortune than grief in your efforts. You can certainly set the tone of the debate by your choices. You might do yourself and your opposing commenters a favor by laying down general rules for what types of comments are candidates for deletion. One easy rule is that the blog owner is a referee whose spot calls are not subject to instant replay review and appeal. That should save you time in lengthy arguments over your immediate judgments. Other posts that can poison the well are ad hominem attacks and other slurs and epithets, especially when no other arguments are made. That said, people can "wrastle" with words in fun ways. Balanced editing on your part at an early stage should make dissent and counterarguments possible, encouraging commenters to "self-edit" before they let their baser inclinations overcome them. MLAJ makes a fair point, too, by pointing out that thread-jacking is counterproductive. If someone brings up a contentious argument in extreme language on a subject that is peripheral to the main post, it should probably be snipped or flagged with an "Ed:" note. Even if I'm probably not on the same page with you politically, I'd like to say that I've found your blogging on balance here to be very thought-provoking, cogently argued, and clear. And so far the comments have mostly followed in this spirit. You'll keep a constructive debate in your comments going if they don't turn into a total mosh pit.
Delete anything and everything you want, the more the better so fas as I'm concerned, and don't for a moment be taken in by the nonsense about censorship and freedom of expression. This is *your* space, and you don't have to tolerate obnoxious people in your virtual space any more than you'd have to tolerate them in your home.
Matt's comments were heading in the direction of Kevin Drum's. I really doubt Kevin even ever reads his own comments anymore. So I think you should be brutal. If people don't like it they can post on their own darned blogs. Even not-exactly-a-troll types like Petey and Al can suck all the air out of the room. Those guys really should just have their own blogs. I agree entirely. I strongly approve of moderation on a discussion board. I'd prefer a reader-moderated (and meta-moderated) system in the slashdot style, but it doesn't seem like any political sites are willing to go for that (probably due to a lack of IT staff mojo). Failing that, policing by the site proprietor is still a hell of a lot better than an unmoderated forum. I used to go to Yglesias' and Ambinder's blogs to read the comments, but as the blogs became more popular the comment threads became steadily more unreadable to the point that I generally stopped reading both the blogs and the comments. Moderation is necessary.
Matt's comment board had a very free-and-easy vibe, which, over the years, led to some wierdos and idiots showing up (especially on anything race-related). I'd say the quality of Matt comments went down between 2003 and 2008, as he really became "Big media Matt". A little (very little) moderation is an Ok thing, but you don't realy need to delete. Just show up in the boards and admonish. Even the most obnoxious of us commentors understand that guests have certain obligations to the host. Also, Matt, like all bloggers had a few hobbyhorses, which his commentors amplified. (I echoed one of those hobbyhorses in a comment in one of your earlier posts. I gather, from this post, that you are the one that deleted it. So no making fun of other Atlantic bloggers then...) You'll have your own style, and your posts, more than comment deletions, will determine the kinds of comments you get. Bloggers get the commentors they deserve.
@ Juan: "One social norm is toleration of dissent, and another is the willingness to listen to and engage with those whose views differ from your own. " I agree with this entirely. A good moderator differentiates between honest dissent (constructive criticism) and bad faith dissent, not intended to further dialogue (destructive criticism, or further than that, out-and-out trolling because someone online is bored with their existence). I'm not worried this is going to get tamped down on this blog if comments are moderated. The social norms I mean are things like not being an ass just because one feels like it. Not being overly hostile and expecting to continue a real conversation. In real life, we don't behave that way unless we're trying to pick a fight and get into a screaming match with a stranger. Or just are a little mentally off. But sane people do this all the time on the internet.
I love your philosophy and dinner party metaphor for blog moderation. Blogs comment sections that aren't moderated are no fun.
|
Subscribe to Ta-Nehisi Coates by Email 
Trailer for The Beautiful Struggle  Monthly Archives
Recent Posts
Keepin It UnrealStanley Crouch Is A Gangsta RapperConfessions of a 30-Year-Old GamerRice, Rice, Baby!Compa$$ionate Capitali$MJust Another Quick-Witted, Egg-Roll-Joke-Making, Insult-Hurling, Chinese-American RapperThe Irrelevant Rev. SharptonWal-Mart's Urban RomanceBlack and Blue |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I strongly believe that if this blog didn't have comments, it would lose about 75 percent of its whatever magic it has.
Cheers for this sentiment! While the comments on the Atlantic blog sometimes wander off in regrettable directions, there are plenty of posters that manage to generate more light than heat.
Posted by Brad L | August 7, 2008 6:00 PM