
Facebook Comments Have Silenced The Trolls — But Is It Too Quiet? - atularora
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/06/techcrunch-facebook-comments/
======
knowtheory
Modest proposal: Just turn the comments off all together. TC doesn't give a
shit about their commenters, and if something kicks off a big enough shit
storm i'm sure there'll be a bajillion blog posts in reply and twitter will
alight with the fire of righteous nerd rage.

If their comments are that much of a problem, just get rid of them. Facebook
commenting is just a dumb half measure, trying to artificially impose
additional social constraints on their commenters.

Besides, it's not like TechCrunch is leading by example in the first place. Is
it any surprise that their comments are filled with trolls?

~~~
olalonde
I totally agree with the observation that TC comments are pretty shitty. That
being said, what good will it do to turn them off?

People like me who think reading comments on TC is a waste of time don't read
them anyway. I won't be better off if TC decides to shut down comments.

On the other hand, people who enjoy reading the trolls (probably trolls
themselves) will lose an enjoyable activity.

No one would really benefit from your proposal. (and no, I don't think anyone
at TC is paid to read/moderate comments)

~~~
knowtheory
Well, it'd save the rest of the internet this ridiculous debate :D

But you're right. TC probably makes ad revenue off of comments as a draw. I'd
be interested to see if a decrease in comments has an economic impact for
them.

------
randomwalker
When I argued that anonymity was a major factor contributing to vitriolic
comments on the Internet[1], I took a lot of heat for it. Sample comment from
Hacker News[2]:

"It's darkly amusing how people pretend this is about anonymity. As if there
had never been a sexist jerk who had a name. ..."

I have to say that the results of this experiment make me feel vindicated.

On another note, multiple commenters here say that they won't be using
Facebook comments because they don't want to spam their friends' feeds.
Apparently they missed the checkbox right underneath the comment box that says
"Post to Facebook"?

[1] [http://33bits.org/2010/08/30/women-in-tech-how-anonymity-
con...](http://33bits.org/2010/08/30/women-in-tech-how-anonymity-contributes-
to-the-problem/)

[2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1647760>

~~~
dman
Anonymity is not just a major factor in vitriolic comments - its also a factor
in being able to comment at all. Ive seen on multiple occasions someone offer
something really insightful on Slashdot as an Anonymous Coward saying
something like - "My Employer probably woudlnt want be discussing this
publicly". In the absence of anonymity current paranoia about "Intellectual
Property", NDA's and employee tracking will ensure that a lot of things worth
saying will remain unsaid.

~~~
mlinsey
Agreed. I also think that Slashdot's policy of starting Anonymous comments at
less karma can give most of the benefits of both sides; it would probably work
even better if anonymous comments started at say -5 karma. That way, stuff
that had to be anonymous but was really useful content could get voted up, but
most of the anonymous internet dickwads (to borrow Penny Arcade's terminology)
would stay relatively hidden from view.

~~~
tomjen3
If you have a user with good karma, Anonymous Coward comments on ./ doesn't
get less karma (at least they didn't back when I was using it).

------
philk
Fantastic. Another part of the internet that can be as bland and humorless as
my Facebook news feed.

~~~
coderdude
Odd comment to see on HN. TechCrunch had a lot of crap comments because of the
audience they attract. I'm glad to see it get a little more serious there. We
don't need humor _everywhere_ on the net. Places that invite troll comments
end up becoming 90% troll comments. Also, maybe it's just the people on your
friends list? I notice a lot of public persona people have extremely bland
statuses, but my normal friends don't mind having funny statuses.

 _Edit:_ It's possible I once again failed to detect sarcasm.

~~~
philk
It's not that TechCrunch comments were great, it's just the way that Facebook
seems to produce really stilted and artificial interaction:

a) Half the comments in my news feed are dull trivia. ("I just ate a ham
sandwich").

b) The other half are thinly veiled bragging ("I just ate a ham sandwich _in
Paris_ ")

c) Weirdly, even friends who are funny in real life tend to be afflicted by
the same condition.

Now, it could just be my selection of friends but I think it's actually people
self censoring.

Finally, the idea of my posting on an internet site following me around until
the end of time is revolting. I don't say anything particularly out there on
HN, but if they switched to Facebook comments, I'd leave.

Edit: Looks like you've responded to my previous iteration of this post. Sorry
to reword it all on you :)

~~~
coderdude
At least we're on the same page about TechCrunch comments. :)

 _Edit:_ Snipped what I wrote in response to your previous iteration. No
problemo.

>Now, it could just be my selection of friends but I think it's actually
people self censoring.

I think that's what it is. Everyone has a reason for censoring themselves on
FB. I think it's the mix of people we have on there. People in the tech
community, real life friends, family, etc. Either you can or cannot get past
it -- many people stick to censoring what they write. I gave up on it to an
extent. I'll troll my brothers or post a YouTube video but I don't post angry
statuses about someone or get all crazy on there.

>Finally, the idea of my posting on an internet site following me around until
the end of time is revolting. I don't say anything particularly out there on
HN, but if they switched to Facebook comments, I'd leave.

There is a similar comment on this thread that expresses this. It's
understandable. I have things on the Web going back to when I was 16. I can't
wait until those archives are dug up. I do enough things now that I attach my
real identity to that I just had to start thinking about what I really want to
say before I say it. There isn't any trolling, though I can still be brash and
opinionated at times. My answer to it all was to clean up how I act. If in the
future I was really dumb about something I said then at least I was sincere
when I said it.

~~~
enjo
I really think there is a HUGE gaping hole for a competitor to step in and
really hurt Facebook. If someone brought out something that had sane support
for what Facebook calls 'lists', they'd kill it. The biggest problem with
facebook is that using lists is really difficult. You can set a default that's
really narrow or you can set a default that's really broad. Restricting status
updates is really error prone as they provide very little feedback about what
you're doing.

If someone built sane grouping with a nice UI to support and built that out as
part of a larger privacy play....I think they could go a long ways.

~~~
mlinsey
Frid.ge is trying to do something along these lines.

------
lwhi
I won't be commenting on techcrunch because of this change, and if I can't
comment I'll be less likely to visit regularly. I liked disqus .. and I'm
annoyed that Facebook is invading this space.

~~~
mkjones
I'm curious _why_ you won't be commenting? What does the new interface lack
that Disqus had (or vice versa)? Or is it merely your annoyance at Facebook
for trying to build something better that drives your decision? (Keep in mind,
no one is forcing the Facebook comment widget down publishers' throats.
Perhaps it bothers you because it feels like it's more optimized for
publishers than users?)

~~~
benologist
Disqus had detachment from the rest of your online life if you wanted it to,
and anonymous commenting.

------
guptaneil
I wouldn't want every blog post from every blog I read submitted to HN. By the
same logic, the problem I have with Facebook comments is that I don't want
everything I comment on to be broadcasted to all my Facebook friends, mostly
because most of the content wouldn't interest them and just increase the noise
on Facebook.

I'm not convinced that any one social network can capture or handle all of my
communication needs.

~~~
seanstickle
There is a very clear checkbox that says "Post to Facebook", which you can
uncheck.

Doesn't address your other issues about communication needs, but broadcasting
to all your friends is a problem with a check-the-checkbox fix.

~~~
guptaneil
Ah, you're right, I totally forgot about that. Although given Facebook's
history, I wonder if they'll remove that option once they achieve critical
mass.

~~~
leon_
\+ retroactively for all comments made already.

------
tuhin
The worst part about using Facebook is the fact that it is Facebook. Almost
like a butterfly effect, you never know what you post using some extended form
of fb goes back to your timeline. True there is a checkbox that gets rid of
your comment from being posted to your profile, but the comment that I posted
on some random website which in no way is Facebook's business to be archiving,
will be in their databases forever.

Probably had it been some company that had shown high moral grounds for user
privacy, I would have been OK, but with the brilliant track record they have
shown for user privacy I would be highly wary.

Something about this does not feel right.

------
rdouble
The most tedious commenters at TechCrunch are the ones who use their real
names. The anonymous trolls are frequently funny and insightful.

------
51Cards
Here's one problem with that article. If you don't use Facebook you can't
leave them a comment about how you don't like the new comment system because
it requires Facebook. That's going to exclude a large number of valid opinions
about the new comment system. You'll only get feedback from those already
willing to 'opt in'.

I don't use FB or Yahoo so I guess my TC commenting days are over for the time
being.

------
bugsy
Do I understand this correctly? To comment on Techcrunch, one now has to
become a customer of some other unrelated company, Facebook, whose main
purpose seems to be tracking all of people's private activity across the
entire web?

That's like telling McDonald's customers that they can't buy a Big Mac unless
they first carry a Sears credit card with an RFID chip. What does one have to
do with the other? Nothing.

I should start telling my customers that they can only buy my software if they
buy my favorite brand of peanut butter.

~~~
fuzzmeister
Saying they have nothing to do with each other is entirely disingenuous. Blogs
want comments to be tied to the commenter's identity. Facebook is by far the
largest identity provider on the web. Thus, blogs tie comments to Facebook.
While some may not like it, it makes an abundant amount of sense.

------
erickhill
On Twitter from Matt Cutts (head of Webspam at Google) to Seigler (author of
article): @parislemon I understand the appeal of switching to FB comments. But
just be aware that you're throwing out a few Matts with the trolls. :)

~~~
X-Istence
I have a Facebook account, but I have the platform stuff disabled, so no
commenting for me.

------
siglesias
There are certain topics, such as sexual abuse and drug addiction that merit
anonymous conversation, but this is tech. The main thing that folks are hiding
behind is the fear of being wrong in hindsight.

If you're going to make a bold prediction or have a strong opinion, be
prepared to back it up enough to slap your name on it. That's really not
asking a whole lot.

Anonymity has its place in civil discourse, but definitely not in public
comment threads that require no registration.

~~~
tapp
> The main thing that folks are hiding behind is the fear of being wrong in
> hindsight.

I'm not so sure that's true.

I can think of many other reasons people might want or even need to
participate anonymously (e.g. to protect their job, or their future
employability, or their relationships with others in the industry to name just
a few off the top of my head.)

Further, some of the most insightful comments seem highly likely to come from
people with one or more of these privacy needs.

~~~
siglesias
While I agree with you, I think there's a better solution to allowing these
kinds of comments in than to open the floodgates and allow any number of
people to post under any name they wish. The thought is noble, and as you
point out, the potential is very rewarding in terms of insight.

That said I've seen pseudonyms used far, far more to disparage and to make
cheap, hurtful points that can't be backed up. I don't think anybody thinks
that what Techcrunch had before is the best we can do in commenting systems.

------
dkarl
_But the other interesting thing we’re seeing is that whereas trollish garbage
used to infest the comment section, now we’re seeing almost the opposite. Many
people are now leaving comments that gush about the subject of the article in
an overly sycophantic way._

I've never been a TechCrunch poster, so take my comments with a grain of salt,
but: duh! All they've done is amplify the negative consequences of unpopular
posts a thousandfold, because the stigma will attach to your real-life
identity instead of an easily abandoned online identity. The mechanism they
chose deters people from posting comments that might engender personal
hostility. That isn't selective at all! Everyone feels shame when they say
something wrong online and a little twinge of pain when someone attacks them;
that's only human. Trolls just feel less than others. Crank up the pain to get
rid of the trolls, and you'll get rid of a lot of other people, too.

Compulsively positive people, of course, are safe anywhere because they don't
trigger anyone to viciously lash out in defense of their favorite technology
or company, and they feel even more welcome than they are because they're
blind to any subtle negativity that is directed their way.

There's another breed of posters who will stay, too -- professionals in
whatever is being discussed. They're used to standing behind their opinions,
but more importantly, they actually benefit from the positive impression they
make, because it bolsters their professional reputation. Sure, you won't lose
those guys, but why would you be surprised at losing other positive
contributors? I'm only a professional at programming, so the consequence of
connecting my personal identity with my words about _anything else at all_ is
pure downside.

Let's not turn every corner of the internet back into real life. Every time
you open your mouth with a critical opinion, you run the risk of personal
negative blowback. In real life, people spend their "negativity" budget
carefully. I use mine up in person on personal issues and work issues. I have
no desire to blow any of it online. The nice thing about the internet is you
can shut down your defenses and relax. We're playing with Monopoly money here,
and even so it still hurts a little! I've built up decent karma here and at
other semi-anonymous sites with my only incentives being my self-respect and
the meaningless little number next to my id. The anonymity that is allowed
here doesn't liberate me from my morals and my pride; it just liberates me
from the constant oppressive calculation of honesty versus risk.

When I comment anonymously, I get a chance to clarify my ideas, express
myself, and receive feedback. (Sometimes I do this by expressing opinions I'm
not sure I personally hold, and which I am not ready to personally endorse --
does that make me a troll?) Connecting my personal identity just adds personal
risk and forces me to turn on all of my social defenses. Ugh, that's tiring
and paralyzing, and it isn't conducive to clear thinking. It makes me feel
tired just thinking about it. No thanks!

~~~
X-Istence
> Sometimes I do this by expressing opinions I'm not sure I personally hold,
> and which I am not ready to personally endorse -- does that make me a troll?

No, a devils advocate.

There are many times that I will play devils advocate only to foster more
interesting discussion and to get a viewpoint out there that may not be
popular but necessary to get the full picture of something.

~~~
anonymous246
If you don't make it clear you're doing it, or if you don't phrase it as a
question, then you're being dishonest. I don't talk about anything serious
anymore with few people who've pulled this trick a few times on me. I'd rather
address people _real_ opinions instead of their made up ones.

------
statictype
Even though I have a facebook account I doubt I'd ever comment outside of
Facebook using it.

I'm not embarrassed by my comments, I just don't want to be spamming friends'
news feeds with all of them.

------
scythe
This reminds me uncomfortably about that crazy "internet ID" program Obama has
been advocating.

Also, I'm not giving TechCrunch my Facebook login. I don't want them messing
with my Facebook, and I really don't see any reason to trust them.

------
rodh257
Perhaps they should use Disquss for their actual startup articles, and for
their troll friendly iPhone/Android/etc posts they can turn on the Facebook
comments? Or better yet, stop posting the troll friendly articles...

------
ilamont
I like to leave comments on various news sites using my real name (or an alias
based on my real name, like I do on HN). I also understand TC's motives for
wanting users to stand up behind their opinions using their real names. It
improves the quality of the discourse, although some people may feel
intimidated to use their real names.

What I don't like about the new TC system is it ties the comments into
Facebook, which I see as an area for communication with friends and family,
most of whom are not interested in seeing my thoughts on technology.

~~~
bugsy
"It improves the quality of the discourse"

That's a bold claim. Is there empirical evidence supporting it?

Topix did an empirical study and found that anonymity in comments increased
the quality of comments.

[http://blog.topix.com/2008/01/anonymous-comments-by-the-
numb...](http://blog.topix.com/2008/01/anonymous-comments-by-the-numbers.html)

------
eyeareque
Maybe everyone is using Chrome with the "Disconnect" add-on? :)

The Chrome Disconnect add-on removes the annoying facebook items from all web
pages.

------
olalonde
Wonder if it's a coincidence that the guy who was getting the most trolled (MG
Siegler) broke this news...

~~~
innes
You mean, the guy who does the most trolling?

As I was reading I was thinking "who wrote this trollish article - it's
blindingly obvious he has no respect for the view that Facebook comments are a
bad idea, and is just paying lip-service to addressing the issue. And he's
clearly trying to wind people up."

 _Ahhhhhhh..... MG Siegler_

I didn't realise the negativity he provokes got to him.

------
danenania
I like facebook, but I also like to quit periodically because I find it
distracting when I need to get work done, and frankly, my fb friends, god
bless 'em, can get annoying as hell sometimes in aggregate. Even if we leave
aside the debate on the pros and cons of anonymity, there are a lot of
legitimate reasons why people wouldn't want to use facebook as a web-wide
identity platform. Creating a forced dependency for something as basic as blog
comments on a site otherwise unconnected with facebook seems very dismissive
of people's preferences in this area. Hope it doesn't catch on :-/

------
Tangurena
Well, I've never commented at techcrunch, but since I refuse to get a facebook
account, it looks like I never will. MMmmmmMMMmmmMMM Those grapes sure are
sour!

------
wslh
It's like a search engine not indexing anonymous sites because they don't want
to invent use a page rank or some other classification.

The TC change inhibit me for commenting again. I don't like to correlate my FB
user with TC, FB is a more private stuff for me and far from my "hacker life".

Also, posting anonymously or with a user not correlated with your real life is
something good about Internet. I believe that this is a big mistake from TC.

------
callumjones
When can we silence TechCrunch?

------
btilly
They have discouraged some trolling. They have also alienated people like me
who consciously choose not to have Facebook accounts.

------
abcd_f
Never had a Facebook account and never will.

So. How do I comment?

~~~
beza1e1
You do not exist. Go away!

------
chopsueyar
Back in my day, we had moderators.

------
lurchpop
great. i'm sure my company will do a "meeh too" now and make me implement it.

~~~
benatkin
Heh. Reminds me of how when Google Wave came out, the company I worked for at
the time made sure I was trying my darndest to get an invite so they wouldn't
miss the boat.

------
leon_
I hate the over-use of the term "troll". More than often people call other
people trolls just because they don't agree on their opinion.

Opinions and statements that disturb the cozy hive mind feeling don't have to
be troll-posts. To me they are an essential part of the internet discussion
culture.

Sadly karma and rigorous "anti troll" comment systems make it all to easy to
flag inconvinient opinions as stupid troll posts.

------
georgieporgie
Given how dumb many of my thoughts and questions have turned out to be in
retrospect, there is no way I'm associating my common Internet interactions
with my real identity.

------
zrgiu
Rant: I just hate how now everything has to be about or revolute around
Facebook.

------
lean
I don't see any comments on the article, it must be a plugin of mine.

~~~
namityadav
I don't see them either because I use Facebook Disconnect plugin. Great
plugin, BTW.

~~~
edderly
Thanks, I'd installed it, but had forgot the ignorant peace it brought to me.

------
Devilboy
When enough sites start using Facebook Comments all the trolls will just make
fake facebook accounts.

~~~
redstron
This already happens. Groups and pages that would be classified as "hate" are
magnets for obviously fake profiles, which are often friends with other fake
(and real) profiles. Facebook's real-name policies seem to be poorly and
arbitrarily enforced. The more sites that use FB for commenting, the more
innacurate FB's social graph will become.

