There seems to be an inverse relationship between the quality and the quantity of online comments that are cleared by moderators of news websites in general. Three columns were dedicated to this subject: “ >Will troll toll work? ” (February 16, 2015), “ >Saving public sphere from trolls ” (August 25, 2014) and “ >Yes to criticism, no to vitriol ” (November 25, 2013). But, the Sisyphean ordeal of the Office of the Readers’ Editor continues as more readers complain about the manner in which some offensive and annoyingly insensitive comments find their way to the webpage of this newspaper.
Comment moderators should realise that they are gatekeepers and should exercise editorial judgment before clearing comments that have the potential to hurt others, to undermine the quality of public discourse or target an individual. The policy of removing unacceptable comments, when pointed out, is not credible enough for alert readers. They question the moderation process that permitted the comments to appear in the first place. It is insensitive to append abusive comments to a report about the death of a person.
It is meaningless to publish counter comments that do not add any value to a debate. Let me share excerpts of a mail from one of the readers, Narayanaswamy Venkataraman: “I am deeply anguished at the two-line abusive response to my comment on the article about ‘One Rank, one pension’ (OROP). I also regret that The Hindu chose to publish a counter comment that did not contain even a single word of refutation of any of the points that I had raised… I would have accepted and even appreciated harsh language if it had contributed to the ongoing debate.” Narayanaswamy Venkataraman wanted the newspaper to “monitor and reject counter comments that add no meaningful essence, as an alternative, to the subject.” His arguments are not only valid but they should form the basis of comment moderation.
Case of Delfi AS: website held liable The latest judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has once again raised valid questions about the content of news websites that open their space for readers’ reactions and comments. The verdict holds the Estonian news website, Delfi AS, liable for third party “defamatory comments made by its users, though the article itself was balanced and contained no offensive language.” Delfi AS carried a report about a decision of a ferry company, known as ‘SLK’, to change its routes and the implications of that decision for the ice roads between the Estonian mainland and various islands. The report attracted as many as 180 comments of which the ferry company found 20 comments liable in nature. Once it raised the issue, the website removed those comments. The Estonian courts held the website responsible for its failure to prevent unlawful comments from being published. The case then went to European Court, which upheld the domestic court’s verdict in October 2013. Subsequently it was referred for consideration by the Grand Chamber of the European Court at Strasbourg which on June 16, 2015, held the website responsible for comments and put a big question mark over the idea of “intermediaries indemnity”.
There is a possibility of this judgment redefining the levels of engagement by citizens in the digital era. Some of the factors emphasised by the Grand Chamber are: the ‘extreme’ nature of the comments which the court considered to amount to hate speech, the fact that they were published on a professionally-run and commercial news website, the insufficient measures taken by Delfi to weed out the comments in question and the low likelihood of a prosecution of the users who posted the comments. Thomas Hughes, Executive Director, ARTICLE 19, observed “the European Court has delivered a serious blow to freedom of expression online, displaying a worrying lack of understanding of the issues surrounding intermediary liability, and the way in which the Internet works.” He expressed the concern that the decision will have a serious chilling effect on freedom of expression beyond the Council of Europe states.
Lesson for everybody The verdict holds a lesson for online commenters and comment moderators within news websites, including this newspaper’s digital platform, about the need to keep conversations civil, decent and reasonable. The comments section is one of the fulcrums in the digital communication ecology of multi-nodal discourse. A brief filed before the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of 27 major media organisations explained the role of the comments and the challenges posed by abusive comments to the legal framework that governs freedom of expression. “The use of comments has significant value in fulfilling the free expression rights of the media’s readership. Through the comments facility, readers can debate the news amongst themselves as well as with journalists. This transforms the media from a one-way flow of communication to a participatory form of speech, which recognises the voice of the reader and allows different viewpoints to be aired.”
Comments have the potential to turn a news website into a democratic polyphony. It can become a site for multiple concurrent debates, for registering dissent, for pursuing an idea and finally for building a polity of informed choices. But, there is also a danger of it descending to cacophony if readers do not express opinions in a language that behoves the requirements of a matured public sphere. The role of the moderators is to retain the space for polyphony and reject voices that breed cacophony.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
