Recently, the Boston Globe had a look at the mind of an anonymous internet commenter. The whole thing is worth a read, and really fascinating. It’s more anecdotal than data-driven, of course, but still has some interesting points. Some of what they found isn’t all that surprising–the hard-core commenters they talked to were all people who had relatively few other commitments (no children, spouses, jobs that didn’t require much time) or who were lacking community in their non-online lives.

Far more fascinating was the thought about what kept people coming back, and what types of things kept trolls from keeping over on some sites. Largely, it came down to the same thing for both–a strong sense of community. Niche sites, obviously, tend to foster community more easily. There’s already a strong shared interest or sense of purpose to bond people together. Obviously that doesn’t prevent drama, though it may make it more obscure. (Want some fun?  Go onto a knitting site and write a post about how you don’t understand why people bother knit with cheap acrylic when there is lovely wool available. Then pop some popcorn and sit back.) On the other hand, it makes it easier to find some common ground to get past agreements and it tends to be easier to spot the obvious trolls.

Failing that, it also provides a pretty easy way for the moderators or site owners to set a firm boundary for discussions when things do get out of hand, or at least corall them into an optional off-topic area.

On the other hand, general news sites have less of a central purpose to rally people around, and a lot less common ground to build off of. So how do you avoid some of the comments that tend to appear–the kind that are uniformly nasty, spiteful, and horrific. Aside from taking the macro view–that these comments are perhaps a reflection of a society and political process that pander to the lowest common denominator and are more interested in sowing discord than working together–it does bring up some interesting considerations.

One of the suggested remedies has been to tie commenting to real identities. Aside from the logistical problems–trolls are adept at making up fake names, albeit not always any that are convincing–I wonder about how efficient that is. Yes, that may deter a few people from leaving hot-headed remarks. But the ones who are truly dedicated to their bigotry (or stupidity) don’t see anything wrong with their position–so will having their real name attached really make a difference? Or would it serve deter those level-headed folks stuck in unfortunate situations. Say, the LGBTQI person who risks losing their job if they come out, or the commenter who wishes to share a personal struggle without revealing their identity and opening them up to harassment (think topics like sexuality, addiction, abortion, mental health)?

What it comes down to, in many ways, is that tools are great, and new ways to help link on-and-offline identities may help, it’s going to take more than a simple fix to solve the issue of vitriolic comments. Right now, the internet is seen as the wild west. You can say the things you wouldn’t dare say out loud and stir up trouble because your bored and anyone who doesn’t like it just isn’t tough enough.

What needs to change is perception–the internet is moving rapidly away from a luxery or diversion and becoming a mainstay of communication and information. But society hasn’t caught up. Until the internet is viewed by most as legitimate form of information and discourse, it will be more difficult to get people to behave as if it were. It’s also going to take some acknowledgment that community management and moderation are not only legitimate fields in their own right (and not as extensions of marketing, which is an entirely different post) but essential. Attempting to main civility on a large-scale site that includes commenting and community without community teams is something akin to trying to run a town with no city council, police force, firefighters, or teachers. Community managers are the ones who announce and explain features and changes (teacher), the ones who listen to feedback and communicate it to everyone else (city ccouncil), respond to and fix problems (firefighters), and help maintain the boundaries that keep comments from devolving into a cesspool of hate and flamewars (police). Is this a perfect analogy? Probably not. But it’s certainly something to think about.