Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the Eternal-September-part-deux dept.

Critics may accuse President-elect Donald J. Trump and his supporters of dragging down public discourse in America, but civility took leave of open discussions years ago – online. Beneath digital news stories and social media posts are unmoderated, often anonymous comment streams showing in plain view the anger, condescension, misogyny, xenophobia, racism and nativism simmering within the citizenry.

In the early days of the World Wide Web, digital conversation areas were small, disparate, anonymous petri dishes, growing their own online cultures of human goodness as well as darkness. But when virtual forums expanded onto mainstream news sites more than a decade ago, incivility became the dominant force. The people formerly known as the audience used below-the-line public squares to sound off with the same coarse "straight talk" as our current president-elect.

[...] As a scholar of journalism and digital discourse, the crucial point about online comment forums and social media exchanges is that they have allowed us to be not just consumers of news and information, but generators of it ourselves. This also gives us the unbridled ability to say offensive things to wide, general audiences, often without consequences. That's helped blow the lid off society's pressure cooker of political correctness. Doing so on news websites gave disgruntled commenters (and trolls) both a wider audience and a fig leaf of legitimacy. This has contributed to a new, and more toxic, set of norms for online behavior. People don't even need professional news articles to comment on at this point. They can spew at will.

Freedom of speech is only for approved narratives. Miss America explained it best in Bananas.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:14AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:14AM (#446573)

    That depends on what you mean by "trolling." In most cases I've seen personally, a lot of the time forceful disagreement or outright disagreement was classified as trolling.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday December 28 2016, @08:33AM

    by Francis (5544) on Wednesday December 28 2016, @08:33AM (#446591)

    I see articles that are likely to result in incorrect views to have the comment section disabled proactively.

    After all, we can't possibly talk about how the various candidates aren't qualified to be President, that would be sexist. It leads to a situation where nobody is able to attach things to articles to indicate that they're biased. As a result, the Clinton's get an advantageous article up and nobody can dissent. Had those posts been allowed, people might have realized what a shitty candidate she was when there was still a chance of doing something about it.

    Likewise, people would have had a chance to point out that Trump is probably no more racist than most 70 year olds and that his positions on various GLBTQ issues were grossly distorted by the press to sell newspapers. He's going to be a deeply problematic President, but probably not in the ways that people were predicting during the election. Or at least, not necessarily just in the ways people predicted.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @10:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @10:39AM (#446621)

      Ahh, I see you have been modded 'flamebait' for 'fueling hatred' because you wrote something that some individuals are still in denial about:

      As a result, the Clinton's get an advantageous article up and nobody can dissent. Had those posts been allowed, people might have realized what a shitty candidate she was when there was still a chance of doing something about it.

      No accurate assessments can be tolerated, especially not by the 'tolerant left' who cannot tolerate the idea it was they that won Trump the White House. No, No, NO... it's off to online commenters gulag for you my friend!

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 28 2016, @10:54AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday December 28 2016, @10:54AM (#446623) Homepage Journal

        True but around here he's half likely to end up scored 5 Flamebait.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:24PM

          by Francis (5544) on Wednesday December 28 2016, @06:24PM (#446774)

          That's one of the reasons why I tolerate the trolling and some of the shit posters, it at least means there's some possibility of coming across some actual thought provoking comments rather than the approved comments that just go on about how great the article was and serve to form an echo chamber.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:12PM (#446887)

        Indeed, he is a master baiter.

    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:55PM

      by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday December 28 2016, @11:55PM (#446894) Journal

      > [...] his positions on various GLBTQ issues were grossly distorted by the press [...]

      More important than what Mr. Trump said is his choice of Mike Pence as his running mate.