Let the reader (of reader comments ) beware...
From time to time, I get a complaint from a reader who just read something outrageous in the online comments posted at www.dailyinterlake.com and wonders how we could possibly let people post such a stupid comment.
From time to time, I get a complaint from a reader who just read something outrageous in the online comments posted at www.dailyinterlake.com and wonders how we could possibly let people post such a stupid comment.
It’s a great question, with a complex response. But the short answer is that we don’t like it any better than you do. However, as defenders of free speech, we work hard to make sure that all viewpoints are represented, even those we disagree with.
On a rare occasion, readers post comments that are so nasty that they get removed (you can report abusive comments by clicking an online button). Even more rarely, we disable commenting on a story altogether because the general tenor of the debate is uncivil and irresponsible.
But yes, we usually err on the side of letting people have their say — and sometimes that gives us heartburn.
Why? Because the online commenting system that is offered by the company that hosts our website allows readers to say whatever they want — and to do so anonymously.
Only a very small minority of readers include all or part of their real name in their online handle. In our opinion, this phenomenon encourages readers to write things they would never say publicly or in a signed letter to the editor, and there is really no accountability unless someone goes to court to subpoena information about an online commenter’s real identity.
Mind you, even we don’t know the identity of most of our registered users, but we would like to, because then we could permanently ban people who are abusive. Currently, all that such a person has to do to beat the system is get a new e-mail account and start posting again under another name.
For that matter, there is nothing to stop unscrupulous people from getting multiple accounts, and posting under multiple names to try to have an improper influence on the debate. We are sure that is happening, but up until now we haven’t found a way to counter the problem.
As an example of what we deal with on a regular basis, you can take a look at the accompanying story about the “online battle” over the Flathead County Agency on Aging. We couldn’t include everything here, because there are different rules for libel that apply to print publications than online ones, but even though the worst offenders have been removed, you will still be amazed at the harshness of tone and the downright bullying that is considered appropriate by people who we suspect are otherwise good citizens.
It bothers us, and it should bother you, too. And since we don’t expect the problem to end on its own, you can expect us to continue to look for a solution that will force our readers to use their real name before they join the dialogue.
That seems only fair.