[nek]

I wonder why? I know for a while during the Ferguson, Missouri thing they were censoring left and right, but now they seem to have gotten rid of it entirely.

[speakeasy]

(08-24-2014 07:20 PM)nek Wrote:  

I wonder why? I know for a while during the Ferguson, Missouri thing they were censoring left and right, but now they seem to have gotten rid of it entirely.

Because anytime Americans can speak anonymously without active moderation, the comments will become inundated with trolls. Look at Youtube for example. The comments section is a sewer.

If you want to get rid of trolling, all you have to do is do require a Facebook signup and at least 50 friends like Tinder did. That would cut out 99% of trolling right there.

[nek]

(08-24-2014 07:28 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:20 PM)nek Wrote:  

I wonder why? I know for a while during the Ferguson, Missouri thing they were censoring left and right, but now they seem to have gotten rid of it entirely.

Because anytime Americans can speak anonymously without active moderation, the comments will become inundated with trolls. Look at Youtube for example. The comments section is a sewer.

If you want to get rid of trolling, all you have to do is do require a Facebook signup and at least 50 friends like Tinder did. That would cut out 99% of trolling right there.

ESPN did this on their site. And it worked. That being said, while anonymity certainly breeds trolls, it also allows for a level of honesty from people that is rare without it. Alot of truths get held back out of fear of social ostracism and other consequences.

[speakeasy]

(08-24-2014 07:32 PM)nek Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:28 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:20 PM)nek Wrote:  

I wonder why? I know for a while during the Ferguson, Missouri thing they were censoring left and right, but now they seem to have gotten rid of it entirely.

Because anytime Americans can speak anonymously without active moderation, the comments will become inundated with trolls. Look at Youtube for example. The comments section is a sewer.

If you want to get rid of trolling, all you have to do is do require a Facebook signup and at least 50 friends like Tinder did. That would cut out 99% of trolling right there.

ESPN did this on their site. And it worked. That being said, while anonymity certainly breeds trolls, it also allows for a level of honesty from people that is rare without it. Alot of truths get held back out of fear of social ostracism and other consequences.

True, but they have to also worry about their brand and if a bunch of trollish youtube like comments start to take over, it makes their brand look bad. And moderating every article would take a lot of staff resources. So it may make more sense to go with a lower level of raw honesty in favor of having less moderation work to do. Imagine the workload Tuth and Roosh would have if they didn't have their one day a month signup policy and RVF got as many visitors as CNN. They'd have to have a full-time staff guy just to delete trolls. When people have to post under their real identity, they tend to behave better.

[Tex Pro]

Only problem is that not having comments makes articles less popular.

My guess is that they will reinstate comments when they come up with a better automated filter system.

[azulsombra]

(08-24-2014 07:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:32 PM)nek Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:28 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:20 PM)nek Wrote:  

I wonder why? I know for a while during the Ferguson, Missouri thing they were censoring left and right, but now they seem to have gotten rid of it entirely.

Because anytime Americans can speak anonymously without active moderation, the comments will become inundated with trolls. Look at Youtube for example. The comments section is a sewer.

If you want to get rid of trolling, all you have to do is do require a Facebook signup and at least 50 friends like Tinder did. That would cut out 99% of trolling right there.

ESPN did this on their site. And it worked. That being said, while anonymity certainly breeds trolls, it also allows for a level of honesty from people that is rare without it. Alot of truths get held back out of fear of social ostracism and other consequences.

True, but they have to also worry about their brand and if a bunch of trollish youtube like comments start to take over, it makes their brand look bad. And moderating every article would take a lot of staff resources. So it may make more sense to go with a lower level of raw honesty in favor of having less moderation work to do. Imagine the workload Tuth and Roosh would have if they didn't have their one day a month signup policy and RVF got as many visitors as CNN. They'd have to have a full-time staff guy just to delete trolls. When people have to post under their real identity, they tend to behave better.

While somewhat true i dont like this line of thinking and it is a slippery slope. We could go one step further and say when people are forced to wear nametags 24hrs they behave better(more P.C.) too. Or when people have a camera in their face at all times they behave differently. Using that logic we should all be posting on this forum using our full first and last names along. What do u think the discussions here would be like then?

Knowing feminists and all types of haters could immediately attack our businesses and cashflow would lead to a lot more silent posters and increase lurkers. Im of the opinion that if someone has something racist or politically incorrect to say they should be able to say it anonymously no matter how offensive i believe it to be personally. I rather hear all points of view and hear and be aware of how dark and sick some peoples thinking is then to hide in some PC fantasyland where everybody pretends to think the same or else they just shut up and dissenting views wont be discussed.

I like the Rooshv forum once a month registration antitroll methods. While not perfect this deters the majority of trolls.

[The Father]

(08-24-2014 07:32 PM)nek Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:28 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:20 PM)nek Wrote:  

I wonder why? I know for a while during the Ferguson, Missouri thing they were censoring left and right, but now they seem to have gotten rid of it entirely.

Because anytime Americans can speak anonymously without active moderation, the comments will become inundated with trolls. Look at Youtube for example. The comments section is a sewer.

If you want to get rid of trolling, all you have to do is do require a Facebook signup and at least 50 friends like Tinder did. That would cut out 99% of trolling right there.

ESPN did this on their site. And it worked. That being said, while anonymity certainly breeds trolls, it also allows for a level of honesty from people that is rare without it. Alot of truths get held back out of fear of social ostracism and other consequences.

EXACTLY! How people REALLY feel about race, religion, and the opposite sex ONLY comes out when you afford them anonymity. I'd rather know what people are thinking, even if it is not polite. You don't get that if you force people to reveal their names, because it can be traced back to their employer.

[speakeasy]

(08-24-2014 08:29 PM)azulsombra Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:32 PM)nek Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:28 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:20 PM)nek Wrote:  

I wonder why? I know for a while during the Ferguson, Missouri thing they were censoring left and right, but now they seem to have gotten rid of it entirely.

Because anytime Americans can speak anonymously without active moderation, the comments will become inundated with trolls. Look at Youtube for example. The comments section is a sewer.

If you want to get rid of trolling, all you have to do is do require a Facebook signup and at least 50 friends like Tinder did. That would cut out 99% of trolling right there.

ESPN did this on their site. And it worked. That being said, while anonymity certainly breeds trolls, it also allows for a level of honesty from people that is rare without it. Alot of truths get held back out of fear of social ostracism and other consequences.

True, but they have to also worry about their brand and if a bunch of trollish youtube like comments start to take over, it makes their brand look bad. And moderating every article would take a lot of staff resources. So it may make more sense to go with a lower level of raw honesty in favor of having less moderation work to do. Imagine the workload Tuth and Roosh would have if they didn't have their one day a month signup policy and RVF got as many visitors as CNN. They'd have to have a full-time staff guy just to delete trolls. When people have to post under their real identity, they tend to behave better.

While somewhat true i dont like this line of thinking and it is a slippery slope. We could go one step further and say when people are forced to wear nametags 24hrs they behave better(more P.C.) too. Or when people have a camera in their face at all times they behave differently. Using that logic we should all be posting on this forum using our full first and last names along. What do u think the discussions here would be like then?

Knowing feminists and all types of haters could immediately attack our businesses and cashflow would lead to a lot more silent posters and increase lurkers. Im of the opinion that if someone has something racist or politically incorrect to say they should be able to say it anonymously no matter how offensive i believe it to be personally. I rather hear all points of view and hear and be aware of how dark and sick some peoples thinking is then to hide in some PC fantasyland where everybody pretends to think the same or else they just shut up and dissenting views wont be discussed.

I like the Rooshv forum once a month registration antitroll methods. While not perfect this deters the majority of trolls.

I'm not defending their action or supporting it, I'm just saying that having unmoderated comments creates a lot of extra work for staff. We can talk about whatever we want on Roosh V, but if you're CNN, BBC and other major news companies, it looks unprofessional to have their comments section looking like youtube with trolls disrupting any serious discussion. And that's a major problem with trolling. Sometimes I'll read a news article on CNN and the discussion starts off civil and there's some good information to learn, then a troll steps in and the whole thing turns into a shit storm and all the value goes out the window. And it happens over and over again. I can see why some companies just don't want to deal with it anymore.

While people might not be as raw in their comments when not posting anonymously, people can often still make the same points, just more tactfully. When there's a news thread on Facebook about the Ferguson rioting, it's interesting how civil the discussion is, but if you look at the same clip on youtube, it's "nigger this, nigger that, fuck niggers," etc etc. What serious news agency wants that all over their page.

[demolition]

I'm not a fan of slurs but I think it's important to be able to call someone a bitch or a slut or other "frowned upon" name every once in awhile. You can typically make those points "more tactfully" but doing so isn't always the best (most compelling) way to do so.

[azulsombra]

(08-24-2014 09:35 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 08:29 PM)azulsombra Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:32 PM)nek Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 07:28 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Because anytime Americans can speak anonymously without active moderation, the comments will become inundated with trolls. Look at Youtube for example. The comments section is a sewer.

If you want to get rid of trolling, all you have to do is do require a Facebook signup and at least 50 friends like Tinder did. That would cut out 99% of trolling right there.

ESPN did this on their site. And it worked. That being said, while anonymity certainly breeds trolls, it also allows for a level of honesty from people that is rare without it. Alot of truths get held back out of fear of social ostracism and other consequences.

True, but they have to also worry about their brand and if a bunch of trollish youtube like comments start to take over, it makes their brand look bad. And moderating every article would take a lot of staff resources. So it may make more sense to go with a lower level of raw honesty in favor of having less moderation work to do. Imagine the workload Tuth and Roosh would have if they didn't have their one day a month signup policy and RVF got as many visitors as CNN. They'd have to have a full-time staff guy just to delete trolls. When people have to post under their real identity, they tend to behave better.

While somewhat true i dont like this line of thinking and it is a slippery slope. We could go one step further and say when people are forced to wear nametags 24hrs they behave better(more P.C.) too. Or when people have a camera in their face at all times they behave differently. Using that logic we should all be posting on this forum using our full first and last names along. What do u think the discussions here would be like then?

Knowing feminists and all types of haters could immediately attack our businesses and cashflow would lead to a lot more silent posters and increase lurkers. Im of the opinion that if someone has something racist or politically incorrect to say they should be able to say it anonymously no matter how offensive i believe it to be personally. I rather hear all points of view and hear and be aware of how dark and sick some peoples thinking is then to hide in some PC fantasyland where everybody pretends to think the same or else they just shut up and dissenting views wont be discussed.

I like the Rooshv forum once a month registration antitroll methods. While not perfect this deters the majority of trolls.

I'm not defending their action or supporting it, I'm just saying that having unmoderated comments creates a lot of extra work for staff. We can talk about whatever we want on Roosh V, but if you're CNN, BBC and other major news companies, it looks unprofessional to have their comments section looking like youtube with trolls disrupting any serious discussion. And that's a major problem with trolling. Sometimes I'll read a news article on CNN and the discussion starts off civil and there's some good information to learn, then a troll steps in and the whole thing turns into a shit storm and all the value goes out the window. And it happens over and over again. I can see why some companies just don't want to deal with it anymore.

While people might not be as raw in their comments when not posting anonymously, people can often still make the same points, just more tactfully. When there's a news thread on Facebook about the Ferguson rioting, it's interesting how civil the discussion is, but if you look at the same clip on youtube, it's "nigger this, nigger that, fuck niggers," etc etc. What serious news agency wants that all over their page.

I understand this point but it would not be a technological impossibility in 2014 to create a forum that automatically censored the most offense words such as, "nigger, faggot, cunt, etc" rendering them as "n*****", etc.

This would remove the harshest language and protect the brands image while still maintaining a legit anonymous forum section. Not one where online sjw neckbeards and feminist can immediately track down and attack the speaker they disagree with in the real world.

[Laurifer]

Not surprising, too many 'journalists' are constantly getting their articles called out by the public, revealing what a bull shit profession it is these days. Sad for the real journalists out there that have had their profession tainted.

[username]

I agree with Laurifer and think it isn't so much about the trolls and racist idiots but the fact that many times commenters call out the journalist for fabrications, lies, sloppy and lazy journalism, political bias, and more. As mentioned above, comments add to pageviews but if at the same time those comments are demeaning the brand then the added revenue of pageviews is not worth the cost to the brand.

[The Father]

(08-24-2014 09:35 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

While people might not be as raw in their comments when not posting anonymously, people can often still make the same points, just more tactfully. When there's a news thread on Facebook about the Ferguson rioting, it's interesting how civil the discussion is, but if you look at the same clip on youtube, it's "nigger this, nigger that, fuck niggers," etc etc. What serious news agency wants that all over their page.

I dunno, I kind of like to know what people are really thinking, rather than the sanitized, sugar-coated version minorities have been hearing for centuries.

[speakeasy]

(08-24-2014 10:41 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(08-24-2014 09:35 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

While people might not be as raw in their comments when not posting anonymously, people can often still make the same points, just more tactfully. When there's a news thread on Facebook about the Ferguson rioting, it's interesting how civil the discussion is, but if you look at the same clip on youtube, it's "nigger this, nigger that, fuck niggers," etc etc. What serious news agency wants that all over their page.

I dunno, I kind of like to know what people are really thinking, rather than the sanitized, sugar-coated version minorities have been hearing for centuries.

I don't need anonymous comments to know these things. That kind of stuff adds no value to a discussion whatsoever. I've expressed pretty controversial things about gays and illegal immigration on liberal websites and haven't been banned or censored. I also got my point across intelligently. But if I'd started throwing around slurs I'd have been censored. A lot of people just don't know how to make a point without sounding like an idiot.

Also consider this, we here at RVF are pretty tight knit site and most of us keep ourselves under control. If we didn't have the once a month registration and it was setup like youtube where anyone can comment, this forum would be overrun in a week. I think any site has to have some level of policing or restriction or the site will be run into the ground.

[Roosh]

They're removing comments sections because it prevents them from controlling the narrative. It's a trend that has little to do with trolls:

http://www.infowars.com/desperate-msm-mo...-comments/

Quote:

Look at Youtube for example. The comments section is a sewer.

Youtube comments are way better than in the past, at least for my videos. The quality is almost as good as on my blog, with very little trolling.

[The Reactionary Tree]

The truth lies in the comments section.

[Foolsgo1d]

I quite like anonymous comments. Not truly anonymous as they can still trace you but I dont need to resort to racial slurs.

Baiting idiots who are too stupid to know better with things that ruin their view of the world brings a smile to my face whenever I do it.

When you have to fight a corner against WKs and feminists the last thing you need is them going after your personal life. It enables you to fight their tidal wave of bullshit.

[The Beast1]

I enjoy Slashdot's posting system the best. It allows for a wide range of anonymity while also fostering a sort of "karma" rating that puts your posts above others. The moderating system is random and there's a meta moderating that basically rates the moderators. It's not perfect, but it is a workable system.

I'm surprised people even bother going to the MSM anymore. Look at the comments on CNBC. They lambast every single article written.

[Glaucon]

Why would you want to read CNN anyway?

[Vicious]

I dunno, most of the comments on major news stories at CNN were in the thousands and rarely had anything to do with the article but rather degenerated into Dems/Reps whine.

It was nice to have but there's little to miss.

[Dragonstone]

National Journal got rid of their comments a few months ago, they were averaging about 5-8 comments a story, and half of them were trolls. The other half were usually people making valid points and commentary on the articles.

I know my readership of the site dropped after that change, since I often looked forward one or two decently written comments on the article.

[binladen]

CNN is the US government propaganda mouth piece. Who would want to comment on any of their pre-approved stories with the US government terrorist spin on it any how. A sheep site and a pathetic one at that

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(08-25-2014 04:47 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

They're removing comments sections because it prevents them from controlling the narrative. It's a trend that has little to do with trolls:

...

Youtube comments are way better than in the past, at least for my videos. The quality is almost as good as on my blog, with very little trolling.

CORRECT. Some mainstream sites have disabled comment sections when they see too many strong contrary opinions voiced. People read the article and then see countless well-versed counter-opinions. There are tricks on how to manipulate that however, but it takes some effort and active moderation.

[magellan]

I'd been seeing a lot of opinions that go against the narrative voiced in the comment sections on CNN articles recently. Doesn't surprise me at all.

[RougeNoir]

The comments section seems to be working fine:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/25/world/meas...index.html