Are You Qualified To Post A Comment? First, Pass This Quiz

If you’ve ever scanned the readers’ comments on nearly any online news or features site, you have probably noticed that a disturbing proportion are profane, vitriolic and sometimes threatening. The problem is so severe that some publishers (including Vox and The Huffington Post) have chosen to suppress the comments feature altogether.

But what gives rise to that behavior? Why do some commenters attack, belittle or insult the columnist they’ve just read in a manner they would never dare to employ if speaking to that person face-to-face? "Because they can," is the obvious, but inadequate, answer. Yes, anonymity confers a freedom to violate social mores. But what is it about the norms of civil discourse that are so odious?

That may be the wrong question. Recent research suggests that trolls aren’t interested in discourse at all, but rather, in asserting a shared group identity and vilifying whomever they perceive as “the other.” Last year, The Guardian commissioned a study of the 70,000 comments left on its site since 2006 and discovered that although the majority of their regular opinion writers are white men, eight of the ten most abused writers are women. The two top male recipients of hostile comments? Both were black.

Last year, The Guardian commissioned a study ... and discovered that although the majority of their regular opinion writers are white men, eight of the ten most abused writers are women. The two top male recipients of hostile comments? Both were black.

Last month, cyber-ethnographers at England’s University of Huddersfield issued a study of a particularly vile cult of trolls, those who have harassed the McCanns, the parents of a child who disappeared several years ago. Applying discourse analysis to the tweets and comments of the anti-McCann faction, the researchers explain that “ … language was utilised in a variety of ways by the anti-McCanns to construct a salient group identity and negatively stereotype and disassociate from the pro-McCann group.” In other words: Their posts don’t primarily argue for or against the McCann parents’ guilt, but signal to each other who belongs to “us,” and identify and ostracize “them.”

Admittedly, the McCann trolls and defenders represent an extreme case of dysfunctional discourse. But the hyper-reactivity evident in their tweets and comments is endemic.

As a writer of columns and book reviews for this site and others that attract astute and articulate readers, I’m fortunately not subjected to much abuse. But even here, I’ll write something like “I’m not saying that all Republicans are racists, just that … ” and almost inevitably, at least one person will slam me for declaring that all Republicans are racist. I’ll self-mockingly refer to myself as a “member of the intellectual elite,” and some outraged reader who failed to see my tongue in my cheek will condemn me for being elitist.

This is not a plea for sympathy. If my irony was lost on a reader, perhaps I didn’t effectively enough convey it. If I’ve voiced an opinion that someone disagrees with, great. Stimulating dialogue and debate is generally the point of commentaries.

It’s not thoughtful opposition that wears me down, but rather, the occasionally inescapable feeling that the person flaming me may not have actually read what I’ve written.

[T]he site is experimenting with a new feature that requires readers to correctly answer a pop quiz about an article before they are allowed to comment on it.

NRKbeta, a technology news site operated by the Norwegian public broadcasting system, is taking a novel approach to address this phenomenon. Based on the all-too-legitimate assumption that some people don’t see much past the headline, or don’t comprehend the articles they read before commenting, the site is experimenting with a new feature that requires readers to correctly answer a quiz about an article before they can comment on it. In doing so, NRKbeta hopes to establish “common ground” — a shared understanding of the article — before inviting readers to discuss it.

I’ll be curious to see if this experiment results in higher quality conversations. And meanwhile, let me emulate them and offer a brief comprehension quiz of my own. According to this commentary:

All online commenters are trolls.

-True
-False

All the Guardian authors attracting negative comments are women, black or both.

-True
-False

According to the University of Huddersfield study, what pattern emerges from a linguistic analysis of anti-McCann comments?

-Most are written by men.
-Most serve the purpose of identifying “us” vs. “them.
-Most present arguments for why the McCanns are guilty in their daughter’s disappearance.

What do you think? I’d love to read your comments. Seriously.