'Popular Science' Shuts Comments, Citing Internet 'Trolls'

[MerryBlooms]

The online content director for PopularScience.com that the website will no longer accept comments on new articles, saying a small but vocal minority of "shrill, boorish specimens of the lower Internet phyla" were ruining it for everyone else.

We're all familiar with that deep, dark rabbit hole of Internet comment boards. A negative or critical comment sparks a firestorm of debate until the discussion erodes into a cavalcade of insults and personal attacks. Once you finally snap back to reality, you realize you've often strayed so far from the original story that it's often difficult to find your way back.

This distracting nature of online comments is part of the reason Popular Science, the venerable 141-year-old science and technology publication, declared that it would be shutting its comment boards down.

more-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/24/225793577/popular-science-mag-online-comments-are-bad-for-science?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook


Bummer.

Ironically, there are some very good posts in the comments section.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. They have the word "science" in their name

so I'd imagine they're constantly under attack from Ken Ham and his acolytes.

[longship]

2. James Inhoff spends half his day there.

Now he'll have to devote more time to posting on the Petroleum Institute site.

[MADem]

3. I guess they haven't totally shut the joint down....

LaBarre says the often politically motivated debates erode the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics, such as evolution and the origins of climate change. She says that on occasion they will still open the comments section on select articles that "lend themselves to vigorous and intelligent discussion." The windows of communication will also remain open on other platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Google+, and the hope is that readers will still chime in there.

[MerryBlooms]

5. It's a pleasant surprise these days, to see thoughtful or humorous discussions. n/t

[MADem]

6. I agree--there's way too much feces flinging and not enough of the sort of conversations

that one would hear face to face.

[joshcryer]

4. Here's how to stop yourself from being an internet troll:

Post under your real name. Own what you say. Don't be a petulant child.

I have owned, corrected, and admitted many things over the past decade of using my name.

It's been highly instructive. Under anonymous names I've found myself being a petulant, hateful, cruel person. It sucks how anonymity makes you a jerk.

[stevenleser]

7. x10^10^100 nt

[reddread]

8. you mean, "how to lose your job"

there are many reasons that people dont advertise their name and address, the best of all is
so some deranged person cannot stalk you and burn your house to the ground.
im pretty sure you are safe, though.
people giving up their identity to Facebook are quite complacent about ID theft.

[Lee-Lee]

10. Very true. I would never post under my real name unless I was in a job driven by publicty

First thing you learn these days in any kind of public sector job, especially law enforcement- never use your real name in social settings online. Employers can use it against you, even if it goes unsaid.

Same for prospective employers. I have a few loan applications working for a possible business startup, and some job applications in. I don't need the underwriter or HR person Googling my name and finding, say my posts here, and out of spite denying it because they are a right winger.

[reddread]

11. exactly

in fact, even if, lets say, you had a hot book on the market, and you were dependent on publicity, the sorts of political discussions
an author might have could be tempered by the self interest of trying to see some money beyond your advance.
there are a million aspects of the concerns involved, and only one real reason that NOW this is problem being addressed by the consolidated, corporate media.
Establishing someone's identity or ip address is already part and parcel of most registrations.
forcing disclosure only endangers personal safety and financial security.
It is not about removing right wing comments. Those people are not ashamed of their ignorance,
and I defy anyone to compare the risks of racist remarks versus those who would accurately
criticize the government of this United States.

[joshcryer]

12. If your job is contingent upon your public views, it's a shit job.

I worked construction for over a decade, I never hid my opinion and wouldn't have thought to do so. I do appreciate and recognize that some would prefer to keep their public opinions anonymous for the reason that they'd lose their job over it, so I'm not saying that it's an end all. But if you wouldn't say something under your own name or identity, then you shouldn't say it at all. Every time you post anonymously think about that.

I do keep my personal info very private, where I live, for example. You will have a super hard time tracking down where I live, because the only place with that information is the DMV. I don't give my addresses out. It's a PO box for any other individuals or companies (because they'll give it out or sell it).

I have had death threats. My email address is public information. I covered Libya extensively and I have several people who want my head, literally, but they can try if they want, they don't know my location and I don't worry about internet trolls and psychopaths who have threatened me.

[reddread]

13. not just jobs

income streams, personal safety.
you arent the only one who has covered events of political import.
I was on Alcatraz back when,
interviewed Joan Baez.
Rode the campaign train with Bobby.
Nicaragua in the 80's, published when others were prevented from doing so.
And received plenty of credible threats from the unhinged who would not brook discussion.
"You have been visited by the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan"
read the sticker placed on my office entry as they ran/rode away frightened in their old pickup truck bed.

[reddread]

14. in many places thats all there is

and people are dependent on them.

[PowerToThePeople]

9. Ya, no.

That is a sure way to shut out certain views. I do not approve.

[reddread]

15. Phyla?

how does that make sense, scientifically or allegorically?
weak excuses, bad writing.
they are not the repository of wisdom or knowledge.
the entire charade is just that.
I knew other shoes were soon to drop in the New Security State and its online dominion.
this is the sure sign of what is to come.