The Power of a Comment
Social Media
It is hard to imagine a world without social media, as it has now become so deeply immersed in our everyday lives and culture. But, I challenge you to think back to a world where you simply ate your breakfast without posting it on Instagram. Or, went out with friends and did not ask them to take 50 pictures of you for a possible new profile picture. Finally, reflect on a time where you would not find out that Michigan was having its first snow day in 30 years from Twitter. In recent times, many have argued that social media and the Internet has been responsible for several notable negative impacts including but not limited to cyber bullying, decrease in self esteem and individuality, perpetuation of stereotypes, and ignorance. However, it is also important to investigate the positive implications that can be seen within the usage of social media. At its core, social media has the ability to connect users despite being physically and geographically removed from one another. Social media, or social network sites (SNS), allows users to connect on the basis of a shared understanding and when examined through this perspective, one can see the value in a world that is socially connected.
It is difficult to trace back social media to its original roots, as there are different definitions that counter its beginnings. According to Danah Boyd and Nicole Ellison, social network sites can be defined as “web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site” (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). With this definition, it is argued that the first SNS site, SixDegrees.com, first launched in 1997 (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Similarly to today, SixDegrees.com allowed users to create their own profiles, and also interact with their “friends”.
While this graphic does not align with Boyd and Ellison’s start of SNS, it presents a comprehensive overview of the history of SNS, and the factors that led up to it. According to Ad Week, social media has been around since 1969 with CompuServe. While there may be disagreement about the origin of social media, it is important to understand the various emergences in the Internet domain that have heavily impacted the creation of SNS. This graphic also shows the emergence of SixDegrees.com in 1997.
Social media can be categorized as a participatory website (Jang & Walther, 2012). According to Communication Processes in Participatory Websites, a participatory websites have common characteristics, which include: proprietor content, user-generated content (UGC), and aggregate user representations. Proprietor content contains the messages created and showcased “by the primary author or proprietor of a webpage” website (Jang & Walther, 2012). Conversely, UGC allow for the participation of those who do not hold ownership stake in the website. In other words, UGC allows the general public to add their own contributions, which is most notably done through the commenting feature. The commenting feature is not limited to social media, but is also present in most online sites, ranging from news to entertainment. Next, aggregate user representations (AURs) are incorporated into websites, which statistically represent the behavior of the site. For example, this could be seen as the number of stars which represent a ranking system, or the incorporation of a number which may represent how many users have visited the website (Jang & Walther, 2012).
There are many similarities between online communication and in person communication including “namely interactivity, informality, playfulness and close community” (Seargeant & Tagg, 2014). However, one of the large differences is that the participants may be separated in space and time and “online messages tend to have more permanence than speech” (Seargeant & Tagg, 2014). Additionally, the ability to remain anonymous, or at least feel that way through the mediation of a computer screen, allows the users to behave differently then they may in an in person environment. Further, online communities “are often more uninhibited, creative, and blunt than in-person communication” (Dimitrova, Garton, et.al, 1996). Among the many features and aspects of social media, this behavior and distinction from in person behavior can be seen within the commenting aspect of new media.
The difference in the way that we act online as opposed to in person can obviously present challenges due to user disinhibition. However, 1.78 billion people use it. My question is, why? (emarketer, 2013). In a 2010 TED Talk by Nicholas Christakis, he claimed, “Social networks are required for the spread of good and valuable things, like love and kindness and happiness and altruism and ideas. I think, in fact, that if we realized how valuable social networks are, we'd spend a lot more time nourishing them and sustaining them, because I think social networks are fundamentally related to goodness. And what I think the world needs now is more connections.” (2010). Due to the negative connotations and reputations of social networks, many users ay not be taking the time to properly “nourish” them. Check out his talk here:
Commenting
This project will be mostly focused on the user-generated content, as I am critically analyzing a critical feature to social media—the comment section. The comment section of essentially any website can drastically differ in tone of individual comments. Notoriously, the comment section has gathered a negative reputation, as social norms are apparently non-existent, and users can essentially voice their opinion in any fashion that they see fit. In a recent New York Times article entitled What Your Online Comments Say About You, the author examines what the comment section displays about its users. The guiding question in this article asks, “what do the comments we leave say about us—about our beliefs, or biases and how we act when the ordinary rules don't apply? And how do our comments affect the beliefs of others?” (North, 2015). This is an emerging field of research, and the article address the evidence researchers have gathered to address this question.
Not surprisingly, the article notes the difference in behavior that is apparent in online commenting sections as compared to in person. Researchers have noted that there is an apparent lack of filter while commenting because usual social norms do not exist. This can also be a result of the ability to create their own user names or even remain anonymous on certain sites. Some argue that there is definite truth in these comments, even if they do not act or speak in the same way in an in person setting: “If there is truth in wine, perhaps there’s some in Internet comments, too” (North, 2015). However, this is debatable, as there is an ongoing debate regarding the authenticity of comments. The article notes that people are constantly adjusting and changing their behavior depending on the situation presented and in order to draw concrete conclusions regarding one’s behavior, there must be a level of consistency across these situations.
So, if the comments are not necessarily reflective of individuals’ personality, behavior, and ideals, then what encourages them to comment the way that they do? In the journal article Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites the researchers noted the difference of social norms in a face-to-face setting as compared to a computer-mediated context. The authors define norms as “situational, or ‘mental representations of appropriate behavior that guide behavior in a certain situation or environment’” (2014). The researchers note that past research concluded that one individual’s behavior set the standard of a norm and successively impact the way that others will behave. The New York Times article titled This Story Stinks, discussed a study published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication in which the researchers designed an experiment to measure “the nasty effect” (Matter, 2013). During this experiment, the researchers divided the participants into two different groups, where one group was exposed to civil comments and the other saw mean ones. According to the article, “The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself” (Matter, 2013). These findings are critical in understanding the power of a comment and how it can affect other user’s understanding and behavior.
Further, the authors in This Story Stinks argue, “The Web, it should be said, is still a marvelous place for public debate. But when it comes to reading and understanding news stories online — like this one, for example — the medium can have a surprisingly potent affect on the message. Comments from some readers, our research shows, can significantly distort what other readers think was reported in the first place” (Brossard & Scheufele, 2013). In order to combat this, websites have outlined what constitutes as an appropriate and well-substantiated comment. However, in the context of television news sites, the article claims that only half of them outline what is appropriate (2014). Furthermore, users may ignore these directions and continue to comment whatever they desire.
Another factor that could impact commenting is the ability to remain anonymous on the Internet. The study examined what percentage of websites required the user to use their real information as opposed to staying anonymous (Cherubini & Waldhorn, 2013):
This graphic demonstrates that the majority of websites require users to register, however their real name is not required to complete this process. When considering anonymity through the lens of social media, these numbers would most likely be incredibly lower. Social media sites such as Twitter and Instagram allow users to create “user names” that could allow users to participate in commentary using names that have little, if anything, to do with their true identity. This anonymity could aid users in discarding their normal social etiquette due to the apparent lack of identity.
However, knowing that one individual has the power to change and set the precedence of the tone of comments, a positive impact can be made. When looking at the commenting feature across different avenues, ranging from social media to local news sites, it can be seen that the users can use this as an avenue to show and demonstrate support for either the content or the individual. Through the analysis of Humans of New York and other participatory websites, which will be presented later, this positive impact can be seen.
Recommendations
In response to the negativity and inappropriate behavior that can be seen within the commenting section of websites, including social media, many organizations have been experimenting in order to lessen this effect. With the negativity that comments can posses, it may appear that a simple solution would be to eliminate the comment feature all together. However, online comments are critical to the media itself, as it allows users to feel as though they are directly involved and contributing to the media. Comments, as seen through this analysis, can have positive implications as well. Comments allow users to further connect with one another by provide more context, information, or support to the original content. Therefore, it has been a challenge to find an appropriate balance in monitoring comments.
The World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers conducted a study entitled: Online comment moderation: emerging best practices. In order to conduct this, the researchers talked to both online editors and community managers at 104 news organizations from 63 countries. Additionally, researchers worked with industry experts to “identify key trends, opportunities and best practices” (Cherubini & Waldhorn, 2013). This extensive report addresses potential challenges as well as suggested best practices. While this study did not address social media as it was focused on news articles and discussion forums, the recommendations can provide a critical foundation when considering SNS. When discussing the studies overall findings, the article explains that there are two contrasting attitudes towards comments: “there are those who embrace comments from users, often as part of a wider strategy of involving their readers in their publication, and there are those who see them as essentially, a necessary evil” (Cherubini & Waldhorn, 2013). In terms of moderation, the study found that only 7 organizations out of 104 restricted comments entirely. This number is not entirely surprising, as comments do have an undeniable purpose in healthy debate. Furthermore, researchers found that ultimately the main reason for not employing moderation is the financial component. Moderating comments is an expensive process that many organizations do not believe is entirely necessary.
When asked about commenting, many editors across the globe addressed the benefits. This was exemplified by Mail & Guardian in South Africa, which was Africa’s first online newspaper: “It’s really what online is about. There is a generational gap from the paper. The paper talks to readers, while online is so much more: it talks with readers. We allow the conversation to happen. That is essentially what sets us apart from the printed press—we have that to and fro of dialogue. It’s one of the pillars of online journalism” (Cherubini & Waldhorn, 2013). The notion that online talks with readers highlights the very importance of commenting. Commenting allows the readers to insert themselves directly into the conversation, and therefore I argue that comments should be monitored, but never completely restricted. Further, the study included a breakdown as to where the comments where actually going, which is demonstrated here:
While monitoring can be a costly process, there are steps that can be taken in order to lessen harsh comments while still being financially conscious. One of the easiest ways to do this is to provide “guidelines” as to what the expectations of the comment section is. For example, the website or online forum can outline what type of behavior is considered to be inappropriate and therefore subject to be deleted. According to the study, some websites emplace a space constraint in order to limit the length of comments. Other organizations have advised their users not to “post irrelevant and off-topic content” along with not swearing (2013). However, these guidelines include a level of subjectivity as to what necessarily is considered to be “off topic”. What if the user believes that introducing this new idea could help to aid and further the argument? Could these restrictions actually end up limiting the productive commentary?
*Photo taken from the comment section of BuzzFeed’s 2010 article Who Has The Worst Commenters On The Internet? An Investigation
Moderation regarding commentary is still in an experimental phase, and there are not specific universal guidelines that can be implemented in order to encourage positive and productive commentary. While there are algorithms that can be utilized to monitor comments, this can be an expensive process. Therefore, it can be effective to remind users to be respectful of opposing views, but also to understand that users are entitled to their own opinions. As long as these opinions are articulated respectfully, then their comment can serve as an opportunity for other readers to learn and gain a broadened perspective. As stated earlier, online provides the opportunity “to talk with readers”. This is powerful, and would not be possible without commentary.
