Comments are often regarded as a right but they can do more harm than good. In the absence of strict moderation, we’d be much better off without them

It sits there like an ugly growth beneath articles, bloated and throbbing with vitriol. It groans as hatred expands its force, waiting for any point of dissent to break it – to unleash its full fury on targets who dare convey some measure of civility or dissent (if you want almost guaranteed hate, be a woman). Comment sections, to me, are the chronic pain centres of the internet, the part of the digital body we’re all forced to accept exists, but must manage by injecting policies and systems into.



Some find great value in comment sections and one feels almost obliged to say “Not all comment sections”. They are, like the internet itself, tools: we don’t discard wrenches because of a few accidents. Yet, if people start using wrenches to mostly beat each other with, maybe it’s time to radically rethink whether they should be allowed at all.

They’re not going anywhere

I’ve never really been a fan of comment sections and have often interrogated their necessity. But, since writing for sites that allow them, I’ve mostly taken the “don’t read the comments” approach – to my own and others’ writing. Every internet writer will tell you something different.

Recently, however, a colleague penned a piece that defended a woman – it doesn’t even matter which woman or what context. Every week brings a new reminder women are not welcome – especially on the internet.

The site published it proudly – however, and inevitably, the comment section ended up a fat sack of misogyny hanging like an unwanted testicle below it. This wasn’t a special case; it seems to happen every time a woman writes something that somehow defends some aspect of women’s autonomy.

But this isn’t just about the awful way women are treated. It’s about the awful way almost everyone is (and no, people are not treated equally in terms of receiving contempt but we all still receive it, even grieving daughters).

So this awful space now existed leeching off the good space above it. My friend’s article was not itself a place to engage her in discussion, nor the issues; it became a platform of hatred, misogyny and all manner of awfulness. Why should we accept this?

‘That’s just the internet’

A lot of times when people express their hatred for people’s behaviour online, wizards emerge to inform us, “That’s just the internet. Learn to deal with it.”

This assertion gives no humanity to victims: everyone is a blank, emotionless internet user, with no history of being targeted for her sex, race, sexuality. As much as we should be treated equally, in reality, we come from backgrounds where we’re not – and we continue not to be treated fairly. Second, in this assertion, the internet, too, becomes an amoral wasteland where only the “fittest” survive – and by “fittest” we usually mean individuals who rarely face prejudice or hostility premised on their gender, race, etc.

People remain people, whether behind keyboards or at your dinner table. That means we can and do take action and decide what kind of spaces we want to create: it’s for this reason, comment systems have blocking tools, social media sites have restrictions!

This, too, dear wizards, is also the internet! Namely: cutting off the tongues that would shriek and outlining why their rage is horrible.

The internet is the biggest, most diverse, most deep, most annoyingly beautiful space we’ve created: lives are entirely made here. It’s not different to the “real world”, it’s part of it. To portray it as some disconnected space helps no one; indeed it only provides ammo to those who would see it as a mere playground for their sadistic taunting.

Just as we shape our social lives in physical space, we can shape our digital space. We block, remove, shut down as we want to create spaces we prefer – indeed, we even create our own tools when the providers themselves do not.

One area we can manage – but seem not to – are comment sections.

Below the line

One of the many pieces of “advice” we get regarding comment sections (and other areas) is “don’t feed the trolls”. Dr Whitney Philips, a communication lecturer at Humboldt State University and who is releasing a book on trolls, writes in The Daily Dot:

‘Don’t feed the trolls’ frames conversations about aggressive online behaviours solely in terms of the aggressor. Even if a person avoids feeding the trolls (and/or the person accused of trolling), he or she is still playing into the aggressor’s hands.

While I would not weep if more sites removed comment sections, Dr Philips thinks slightly differently. She tells me:

We should encourage more dialogue online, not less, particularly when the people speaking have been historically silenced, delegitimised, or minimised. What hateful, unnecessary commentary does (especially when identity-based) is run counter to that basic objective; that’s what warrants onsite intervention. That said, what can or should be done about problematic online speech and behaviour depends on who is speaking to whom, in what tone, and to what effect.

Dr Philips’ colleague, College of Charleston assistant professor of communication Ryan Milner, studies participatory media and public conversation. He tells me something similar when I ask him if comment sections should be the exception or rule of websites.

I think it could be a mistake to make them ‘the rule’ and then just leave them there unattended. I think if you want a comment section – and I believe in the power of voice to public engagement, mounting evidence to the contrary – then it has to [be] alongside a commitment to curating civil engagement. This means technological, editorial, and social steps to make them the agora you want them to be.

Adam Lee, who runs popular atheist blog Daylight Atheism (which means it’s never controversial right?), welcomes comments but thinks it’s digital suicide to not moderate.

Unmoderated comments will never work. There are too many cranks, crackpots, bigots and nasty people with nothing but time on their hands. And no intelligent, thoughtful person will take the time to jump into a comment thread that’s a cesspool (and who could blame them?), so bad comments inevitably drive out good ones.

This again doesn’t mean Adam wants no comment sections, just better managed ones – as Philips and Milner highlight. For Adam, it matters in an importantly, positive way to have comments:

I do value comments. When I get something wrong, people can correct me; and often readers will suggest related material or ideas that I didn’t know about.

So the advice “don’t feed the trolls” is not only bad, but misguided. It is not only playing by the trolls’ rules, it also negates curation and proper engagement with your comment section. This is what results in comments flooded with trolls, bigots, and so on, instead of a curated space of proper discussion and debate to move important ideas forward for all.

When it works

Several internet spaces are renowned as cesspools of racism, sexism, misogyny and all forms of bigotry: 4Chan is often regarded as such as a space, as is reddit. Yet, for me, one of the safest, protected, and supported spaces is within reddit, called CreepyPMs.

Aside from showcasing the most vile examples of (mostly) men being utter creeps to women, CreepyPMs is a safe space and support network. The rules for the site are prominently placed and state: “comments that are not conducive to a supportive and positive environment may be removed, even if they don’t violate the rules.” This might seem harsh to some, but the mods allow you to respond if you think your comment removal is a mistake.

There are more than 30 moderators in the group, meaning that you’ll rarely see, for example, an awful sexist comment blaming a woman for receiving creepy messages (“well, what were you wearing on your profile page?”, etc). If you do see one, it’s usually gone shortly (it’s really remarkable, it can be seconds or minutes sometimes). Members of the group can take comfort knowing that whatever they post, they won’t be blamed, harassed or targeted – at least in that subreddit. This is the curated agora Professor Milner mentions comment sections can and should be.

I asked the mods how they manage this incredible feat of creating a wonderful, safe space, while dealing with the toxicity that comes with women and sexuality online.

“We have a clearly defined goal,” they told me. “We seek an open, friendly and inclusive space. We’re a support group. When you keep that goal in mind, it’s easy to see how to moderate a thread. If someone’s attacking another user, it’s pulled. If someone cries ‘Fake’ it’s pulled. If someone says, ‘This is so typical of this ethnicity’ it’s gone.”

Their most important lesson is something even major sites often forget. Marginalised and targeted individuals are not likely to share their stories or opinions when the door is left open to the rest of the world; a world already demonstrating its antagonism toward such people. They told me:

We understand that someone who’s already feeling vulnerable is unlikely to want to share their experiences in a space where they’ll have to constantly defend their actions, so we give them the promise of a friendly, clean comments section – free from further harassment.

This should be the rule, not the exception. Yes this is a small site moderated by passionate people aimed at helping others. You could argue sites are platforms, not support networks: the kind of incredible moderating CreepyPMs demonstrates simply can’t be paid for, people are insufficiently qualified, etc.

If so, I fail to see why that means keeping your door open as opposed to locked. If you can’t afford a bouncer, you don’t prise the doors off their hinges.

Wading through the muck

Comments have reached a point where there are even entire satire sites, social media accounts, and so on, dedicated to mocking them. There are two Twitter accounts, for example, mocking The Daily Mail and the worst one showcases comments – not “satirises”, not “makes up”, etc, but merely showcases.

The Mail is regarded as another notoriously awful space, especially in its comment section. A person who used to moderate this comment section told me they would try use their powers for good:

Occasionally, I’d deliberately shape a comment thread: allowing all the more tolerant views through and stifling the (admittedly legal) views of racists, sexists and general idiots. We were obliged to moderate a strict quota of comments a day though, so that wasn’t always possible. Sometimes, if we were particularly busy, I’d disallow anything over 100 words just on the basis that I didn’t have time to read it.

The ex-moderator suggests a way to combat poison from arising is having “everything you publish online … tied to a single, verified account. If you’re ashamed of what you’re saying, you shouldn’t be saying it.”

This may go some way to helping, though it’s ambitious. We know anonymity has less of an effect than we might think toward encouraging abusive behaviour: these people are “trolls” in real life, too.

The major thing isn’t anonymity so much as it is non-accountability: there is no tangible, negative consequence for treating someone awfully.

Though that’s slowly changing, with people being convicted for internet behaviour – because more of us, and the more powerful of us, are realising internet behaviour is still behaviour and it has an effect on targeted people.

Comment sections as a gift, not a right

Many people often feel slighted at comment moderation when their opinions are removed. Yet, people who complain about having their comments removed seem to be the kind of people you don’t want commenting in the first place.

Because comment sections exist, people believe it’s a free soapbox on which all opinions – even awful ones – are given voice and space (I’m sure some will joke about Comment is Free here). Sites need only adhere to (mostly) their own rules and policies: they can set whatever parameters they want. You, as a reader, do not.

It seems to be a terribly entitled perspective: your opinion is so golden delicious a website will fall and collapse if it does not publish it. This is not only a high-minded opinion of yourself but also negates the entire 99.999999% of the internet that really does allow free rein to voice bizarre and bigoted views. (If the site really needed your opinion to survive, I assume they’d be paying you to write atop the line.)

Sites often seem hesitant about banning or shutting off comment sections, having to step forward hat-in-hand to their readers to explain why (when they turn off comments on often highly sensitive articles).

That to me is the wrong approach: comment sections shouldn’t be the rule, but they should be a carefully managed gift to readers on an article-by-article basis. That means readers should be thankful they’re allowed to comment directly on the site – not feel infringed when it’s not there.

Many people, including myself, won’t read a comment section if it is not moderated – often not reading an entire site, even the articles. As The Atlantic’s Adam Felder notes: “unmoderated comments appear to have a small, but real deleterious effect on readers’ perception of the sites on which they appear.”

Indeed, as Columbia Journalism Review’s Dorian Rolston notes, comments themselves colour perceptions of the article (though I know many contest the studies this is based on); meaning writers can work hard on research, clarity and still be left up to the mercy of commenters clouding perceptions. This helps no one except the worst offenders.

We must remember, though, that it does take time and effort to moderate. As Derek Mead, editor-in-chief of Vice’s Motherboard tells me: “In practice, it takes a huge amount of time to keep up with comments sections, and defining the line of a bad post or a good one is difficult; it saves a lot of time and frustration just dealing with the worst.” Thus, even when moderating does occur, as we note with Mead and the ex-Mail Online moderator, awful comments will still exist. (I am reminded by the ex-Mail Online moderator that if we think the comments we see are awful, think about the ones moderators have removed.)

Baby, bathwater

The internet is by definition changing the landscape of media engagement. Immediate news can be immediately judged; commenters who are better qualified than the author can show the rest of the world – on the same platform – why he’s wrong. The idea of Letters to the Editor might be a nice way to combat the unending tide of opinion demanding publication, but that requires time editors might not have.

With rolling, 24-hour news; breaking stories emerging with visuals and audio from social media; camera phones blinking at the world capturing its existence in stuttering moments and shaky footage – we’re left with a deluge of data to interpret, record, report and analyse. This data that journalists and writers collect is thrown to the wolves, their audience, who devour and/or spit on it. With instant comment replies, these same writers must manage their audience’s consumption – while also trying to manage the data being consumed in the first place.

This is difficult but it is possible. A rethink of what it means to allow an audience to participate matters. Claims you will “lose” an audience by not giving them a platform is proven wrong again and again: many, like myself, love websites without comment sections. Some even thrive, as Felder notes of one site:

The National Journal changed its comments policy, opting to eliminate comments on most stories as a way to stem the flood of abuse that appeared on the site. For all the boycott threats and comparisons to Hitler, though … the site seems to be doing better now. If anything, user engagement has increased since the comment policy changed. Page views per visit increased by more than 10%. Page views per unique visitor increased 14%. Return visits climbed by more than 20%. Visits of only a single page decreased, while visits of two pages or more increased by almost 20%.

PopSci shut off its comments. Pacific Standard did, too. Both are doing fine. As indicated, nobody wants to enter comment sections that become poisoned with vitriol. It may seem populated, but often it’s populated by the very kinds of people making it poisoned in the first place. By removing comment sections altogether, you not only can get more audiences in terms of numbers, but more willing to return as they know it’s a safer space

Perhaps there are sites that failed because they removed comment sections, but I am not aware of any. (And it would take a lot to show it was the comment section removal itself that did so, as opposed to poor management, editing, etc.)

The precious way comment sections are viewed as a kind of right – by site owners and commenters – needs to change. At best, they should be heavily moderated and shut off without apology, viewed as gifts; at worst (?) removed altogether. No one is shutting off every open blogging platform and internet forum in the world where commenters are free to take their opinions.

It’s about time we combated entitlement by prioritising safety, solidarity and quality (as places like CreepyPMs do) over so-called “free speech”, that benefits only the loudest and usually most vile.

Or you know: shut them off altogether.

@tauriqmoosa