5 ms·

In my area, local journalism had a sharp decline as soon as the publisher began requiring Facebook authentication for comments on the online stories. Previously

In my area, local journalism had a sharp decline as soon as the publisher began requiring Facebook authentication for comments on the online stories. Previously there had been at least a dozen comments on any major story and now there are always zero. Apparently throwaway accounts can be most critical when the audience is your closest neighbors, especially when a poster is associated with a local business. (Admittedly, there had been some abuse of the online comments and the publisher did save money in the short term by dropping any moderator effort from the payroll costs.)

gowanus 8y ago
It's kind of unfortunate that there's no easy way to scope the internet down to a smaller group of participants, for small time operations like local news sites. Local news doesn't want to include audience participation from as far away as another time zone, or another state, but even then, geographic exclusions aren't an entirely correct exclusion criteria, since former residents of a local region may wish to participate from afar, because they still tune into home town news, after moving to new territory. Real world names freeze out lots of participation, because taking ownership of an "incorrect" (contentious) opinion can have permanent consequences to one's reputation. The real name and/or social credibility fix, is a blunt force trauma solution, to keep out obnoxious people, and isolate discourse to limited subgroups. But another problem is, even without being obnoxious, non-professional participants frequently go off-topic and off-script. Pseudonyms almost certainly require painstaking, labor intensive moderation, and a skillful attention devoted to selectively ascribing relevance to conversation. Most local operations just want to know there's an audience with a pulse, but providing that audience with a platform and a voice is another matter entirely.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  One option is to do what illicit sites have done forever: require an invite, such that the bad deeds of the invitee reflect on the inviter. Doesn't require real names on the site, but the inviter knows who they are inviting.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Lobste.rs, for instance
    - wincy 8y ago
      I want an invitation to lobste.rs now!
      - zie 8y ago
        message me your email addy.
- rpvnwnkl 8y ago
  Facebook Auth is an easy step for web moderators to take, and is helpful from a marketing/analytics perspective as well. I wonder if requiring a third-party “real person” auth like Facebook wouldn’t be so detrimental (in the contrxt of this discussion) if your user account could be publicly anonymous. For example, the site owners know who you are, but the comments section just sees whatever name/avatar you’ve chosen for that particular site. A gated community, but you don’t have to wear a name tag once you’re in? I suspect those are already in use, if anyone has examples feel free to share.
  - gowanus 8y ago
    For that to work, Facebook Auth would have to raise barriers against open, public identification, while acknowledging that the authenticated account is going to be disclosed to the site owner, which is a confusing layer of deflection. I don't think the rational basis for the nuance of that negotiation would reach end users or site owners. Both would likely complain that it offers no assurance of safety, and remains a disappointing compromise. The choice to adopt nuanced tactics in furtherance of rewarding communication requires nuanced personalities at the reigns.
- abraham_lincoln 8y ago
  What about trained moderators?
  - briandear 8y ago
    Who pays them?
st26 8y ago
In my area, Facebook authenticated commenters conducted themselves poorly as ever and comments were permanently switched off.
- brandonmenc 8y ago
  Yup. When I look at the comments on the stories the local news back home posts to Facebook, I see hundreds if not thousands of vile racists come out of the woodwork - most of them with names I recognize.
KC8ZKF 8y ago
Comments are toxic anyway. Disable them and post a link to a subreddit or other place that is willing to deal with them. Or just disable them.

gowanus 8y ago

It's kind of unfortunate that there's no easy way to scope the internet down to a smaller group of participants, for small time operations like local news sites. Local news doesn't want to include audience participation from as far away as another time zone, or another state, but even then, geographic exclusions aren't an entirely correct exclusion criteria, since former residents of a local region may wish to participate from afar, because they still tune into home town news, after moving to new territory. Real world names freeze out lots of participation, because taking ownership of an "incorrect" (contentious) opinion can have permanent consequences to one's reputation. The real name and/or social credibility fix, is a blunt force trauma solution, to keep out obnoxious people, and isolate discourse to limited subgroups. But another problem is, even without being obnoxious, non-professional participants frequently go off-topic and off-script. Pseudonyms almost certainly require painstaking, labor intensive moderation, and a skillful attention devoted to selectively ascribing relevance to conversation. Most local operations just want to know there's an audience with a pulse, but providing that audience with a platform and a voice is another matter entirely.

Eridrus 8y ago
One option is to do what illicit sites have done forever: require an invite, such that the bad deeds of the invitee reflect on the inviter. Doesn't require real names on the site, but the inviter knows who they are inviting.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Lobste.rs, for instance
  - wincy 8y ago
    I want an invitation to lobste.rs now!
    - zie 8y ago
      message me your email addy.
rpvnwnkl 8y ago
Facebook Auth is an easy step for web moderators to take, and is helpful from a marketing/analytics perspective as well. I wonder if requiring a third-party “real person” auth like Facebook wouldn’t be so detrimental (in the contrxt of this discussion) if your user account could be publicly anonymous. For example, the site owners know who you are, but the comments section just sees whatever name/avatar you’ve chosen for that particular site. A gated community, but you don’t have to wear a name tag once you’re in? I suspect those are already in use, if anyone has examples feel free to share.
- gowanus 8y ago
  For that to work, Facebook Auth would have to raise barriers against open, public identification, while acknowledging that the authenticated account is going to be disclosed to the site owner, which is a confusing layer of deflection. I don't think the rational basis for the nuance of that negotiation would reach end users or site owners. Both would likely complain that it offers no assurance of safety, and remains a disappointing compromise. The choice to adopt nuanced tactics in furtherance of rewarding communication requires nuanced personalities at the reigns.
abraham_lincoln 8y ago
What about trained moderators?
- briandear 8y ago
  Who pays them?

st26 8y ago

In my area, Facebook authenticated commenters conducted themselves poorly as ever and comments were permanently switched off.

brandonmenc 8y ago
Yup. When I look at the comments on the stories the local news back home posts to Facebook, I see hundreds if not thousands of vile racists come out of the woodwork - most of them with names I recognize.

KC8ZKF 8y ago

Comments are toxic anyway. Disable them and post a link to a subreddit or other place that is willing to deal with them. Or just disable them.