One of the biggest challenges in this digital era is how to harness the participatory agency of readers without falling prey to the aggression of trolls. I have touched upon this topic in a couple of my earlier columns: “Saving public sphere from trolls” (August 25, 2014) and “Yes to criticism, no to vitriol” (November 25, 2013). The WAN-IFRA (World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers) published a detailed report on the best practices for online moderation.
The authors of the report observed: “It is impossible to limit commenting to those who do have something constructive to say, and discussions frequently descend into torrents of insults that are utterly irrelevant to the original article. Maybe it’s the fact that anonymity and distance often allow consequence-free behaviour and a chance to defy social norms, or maybe it’s a factor of the structure of online conversations, but comment threads on websites can frequently shock due to abusive, uninformed, not to mention badly written contributions.”
While most media outlets have opted for moderation, some do not impose any editorial control and permit all sorts of comments on their webpage. There are two forms of moderations. The Hindu has opted for prepublication moderation, where moderators clear comments. There are also media houses that practise post-publication moderation, where comments are removed if found offensive or insensitive.
However, with the increased presence of organised trolls, some major media organisations have decided to close their comments sections. Popular Science , Bloomberg and Chicago Sun-Times have killed their comments section. Reuters has shut down its comments section for news stories. This, some media scholars feel, is an extreme step.
Making content, not comments, free The Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University recently documented an interesting development that turned the governing rules on its head. On February 10, 2015, it reported about an unusual step taken by the Jewish site, Tablet , to deal with unruly commenters: charging readers who want to submit — or even view — comments on their site. This is different from the conventional paywall mechanism, where readers are charged for content. In Tablet ’s case, content is free but posting comment is not.
Tablet ’s editor, Alana Newhouse, said that the new talk-back charge was aimed at heightening the discourse on the website: “We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilised and constructive discussion, sometimes allowing destructive — and, often, anonymous — individuals to drag it down with invective (and worse). Instead of shutting off comments altogether (as some outlets are starting to do), we are going to try something else: Ask those of you who’d like to comment on the site to pay a nominal fee — less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation.”
Caroline O’Donovan of Nieman Journalism Lab also cites other examples aimed at taming the trolls. She talks about putting up another barrier — one that necessitates a credit card, or at least a PayPal account — with the aim to disincentivise individuals, whose only motivation is to troll, from joining the conversation. She refers to the group blog, Metafilter, as one of the few to try a version of this model. “Its members make a single payment of $5 for the ability to share links and comment on the site; reading remains free. The website says this system helps ensure trust in the community and that the quality of contributions is high. The comedy website “Something Awful” has a similar system, charging a one-time $10 fee for posting and reading access to its forums.”
Ms. O’Donovan observes that publishers who kill the comments like to point out that — with news brands and journalists available on a myriad of social platforms — readers aren’t exactly at a loss for ways to get in touch. According to her, the response to Tablet ’s move on Twitter was split between those excited about a new approach to comments and those worried about decreased quality, loss of equal access, and the price of commenting privileges.
Revenue model for digital platforms?Tablet ’s move may have been aimed at controlling trolls and improving the quality of debate in virtual space. But, it may, willy-nilly, pave the way for a meaningful revenue model for digital platforms. So far, no legacy media organisation has managed to secure substantial revenue to justify their spending on technology, though their digital presence has helped many to reach audiences outside their conventional geographical markets. The technological disruption, that infamous term from the Silicon Valley, has played havoc with media economics, and undermined the sustainability of many a media house. In the current scenario, only Internet service providers and digital behemoths such as Google, Facebook and Twitter are making money. But, this disruption has also stoked people’s imagination to be a part of a conversation that forms our sociopolitical narrative. They may be hesitant to pay for news and content but may be prepared to fund their own articulation. A well thought-out multi-tier paywall mechanism for a public talk-back system may be the elusive revenue model the media was looking for in this digital era.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
