5 ms·

"Then someone invented “reader comments” and paradise was lost". Of course the paradise was lost for the oppressing media. Long live the internet. "Comments f

"Then someone invented “reader comments” and paradise was lost". Of course the paradise was lost for the oppressing media. Long live the internet. "Comments from some readers, our research shows, can significantly distort what other readers think was reported in the first place" Research would show that your lies significantly distort what readers think in the first place. "But as they say, the genie is out of the bottle." You would happily undo this whole internet thingie, wouldn't you?

lutze 14y ago
Yeah seriously. This guy just lauded the internet as a bastion of debate, and then in the same breath bemoaned the fact that the dirty proles get to talk back. It's not a "debate" if other people don't get a say, it's propaganda...
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  He's not referring to debates as being the problem. Quite the contrary: "In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments." Civility does not mean blindly agreeing. It means just that: acting civil. However, what he does argue against is rudeness and insults. Essentially, not debating, but slinging mud. "Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought." Simply put, you can act civil even if you disagree. This does provide value. However, when that civility is removed, the results are polarizing. If you can't see the benefits of civil debate, you are an idiot.
  - friendly_chap 14y ago
    Your last sentence ruined it, seriously.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - venus 14y ago
      Yes, it did. Think about it again...
    - jasonlotito 14y ago
      Actually, I want to thank you. For making my point, better than I can. Whether you are being serious, or you understood what I was trying to say, that you said what you said proves my point. Just to be clear, I did not really mean this: "If you can't see the benefits of civil debate, you are an idiot." It was intended to have a tone completely different from the rest of the comment. And so, despite the rest of the comment being sound, this one sentence caused a rift. So, I did not add it to insult. I added it to make a point, and you highlighted that point so much better than you realized.
      - friendly_chap 14y ago
        Haha, nice one! We agree about civility.
      - lutze 14y ago
        I don't necessarily disagree with you, it's a good point well made (it also made me laugh). That being said, if you can't handle being called an idiot on the internet, you unfortunately probably are an idiot (on the internet).
        jasonlotito 14y ago
        That's completely beside the point though, and not the issue at all.
bpatrianakos 14y ago
Whoah, what's with the hostility here? Not everything is a big corporate media conspiracy for control of information, power, and taking over the world. Forget about what you think of the Times or any other major media outlet for a moment and just focus on the point of the article and you'll see the author makes some great points. Supposing for a moment that the NYT and other outlets are trustworthy, doing a good journalistic job, etc. This research shows that people who write ignorant comments, especially if they're written in a tone not much different than your own right now to be honest, can distort what others think of the information presented. This is not a good thing. The people who comment based on emotion rather than reason are able to sway people into not only believing something potentially wrong but such comments also take otherwise thoughtful people and get them acting and thinking based on emotion rather than reason. If you yourself were to make some very good point about topic X that was well-researched and could potentially help to inform and make many peoples' lives better but then some asshole contrarian comes along and makes some emotional appeal that sways people in the opposite direction. How incredibly frustrated would you feel knowing that a potentially enlightening conversation could have ensued but now it's just a rat's nest of ignorance like YouTube? I don't know how you turned this into a statement against media outlets but this is actually something that applies broadly and is not just harmful for the Times or the other "evil" media outlets.

lutze 14y ago

Yeah seriously. This guy just lauded the internet as a bastion of debate, and then in the same breath bemoaned the fact that the dirty proles get to talk back. It's not a "debate" if other people don't get a say, it's propaganda...

jasonlotito 14y ago
He's not referring to debates as being the problem. Quite the contrary: "In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments." Civility does not mean blindly agreeing. It means just that: acting civil. However, what he does argue against is rudeness and insults. Essentially, not debating, but slinging mud. "Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought." Simply put, you can act civil even if you disagree. This does provide value. However, when that civility is removed, the results are polarizing. If you can't see the benefits of civil debate, you are an idiot.
- friendly_chap 14y ago
  Your last sentence ruined it, seriously.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - venus 14y ago
    Yes, it did. Think about it again...
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    Actually, I want to thank you. For making my point, better than I can. Whether you are being serious, or you understood what I was trying to say, that you said what you said proves my point. Just to be clear, I did not really mean this: "If you can't see the benefits of civil debate, you are an idiot." It was intended to have a tone completely different from the rest of the comment. And so, despite the rest of the comment being sound, this one sentence caused a rift. So, I did not add it to insult. I added it to make a point, and you highlighted that point so much better than you realized.
    - friendly_chap 14y ago
      Haha, nice one! We agree about civility.
    - lutze 14y ago
      I don't necessarily disagree with you, it's a good point well made (it also made me laugh). That being said, if you can't handle being called an idiot on the internet, you unfortunately probably are an idiot (on the internet).
      - jasonlotito 14y ago
        That's completely beside the point though, and not the issue at all.

bpatrianakos 14y ago

Whoah, what's with the hostility here? Not everything is a big corporate media conspiracy for control of information, power, and taking over the world. Forget about what you think of the Times or any other major media outlet for a moment and just focus on the point of the article and you'll see the author makes some great points. Supposing for a moment that the NYT and other outlets are trustworthy, doing a good journalistic job, etc. This research shows that people who write ignorant comments, especially if they're written in a tone not much different than your own right now to be honest, can distort what others think of the information presented. This is not a good thing. The people who comment based on emotion rather than reason are able to sway people into not only believing something potentially wrong but such comments also take otherwise thoughtful people and get them acting and thinking based on emotion rather than reason. If you yourself were to make some very good point about topic X that was well-researched and could potentially help to inform and make many peoples' lives better but then some asshole contrarian comes along and makes some emotional appeal that sways people in the opposite direction. How incredibly frustrated would you feel knowing that a potentially enlightening conversation could have ensued but now it's just a rat's nest of ignorance like YouTube? I don't know how you turned this into a statement against media outlets but this is actually something that applies broadly and is not just harmful for the Times or the other "evil" media outlets.