I’m occasionally asked for advice by Liberal Democrat bloggers, particularly those just starting up, on how they should approach comments. Should they allow them all? Or moderate just those that are libellous? But what about abusive ones? Or ones that might not be from who they say they are? Or comments from political opponents? And so on.
My general advice is:
- Moderate comments that just contain abuse – because they don’t add anything, and often put other people off from commenting (though that won’t stop someone occasionally accusing you of being the worst censor since the invention of the written word just because you didn’t publish their comment saying YOU’RE A LOSER HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
- Moderate comments that pretend to be from someone they’re not – e.g. a Conservative councillor pretending to be an unhappy Liberal Democrat member. (Who know why it seems to be Conservatives that are so keen on this, but in just about every case where someone has been tracked down, it was a Conservative rather than a Labour activist.)
- But do allow people to use a pseudonym as there are all sorts of reasonable circumstances in which someone may wish to not use their real name (e.g. a teacher who wants to keep their online political discussions private from the children they teach).
- Allow comments from political opponents, as long as they don’t fall foul of any of the above.
But what are your views. Would you alter any of these? Or add anything to the list?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
AM
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
34 Comments
I think that the major issue is with post facto moderation. If you moderate before you let any comment appear, there is a legal case to be made that any libel that slips through has been approved by yourself. Moderating after the fact is safer, legally speaking.
I don’t much care for the swearing filter, but I don’t suppose that’s going to be done away with 😉
You make a good point about pseudonyms but I still think there is a good case to be made for expecting them to give some biographical details so we know where they are coming from. And since it is so easy to find a single page of webspace somewhere to put said information, it seems reasonable for the onus to be on the individual commenter.
Interesting point James. Wouldn’t that be holding such people to a higher standard than, say, a Jane or John Smith who uses their real name, but because it is so common it doesn’t really tell you anything about who they are? Thoughts?
The short answer is yes – but that is justifiable because you can cross examine an individual using their own identities and expect an answer.
I’m not asking for an essay – just a few sentences. We could even set up a page on the LDV wiki for this purpose.
I am happy with how things are. I would like to thank Mark for the work he has done. Do you have to read every message?
Why wouldn’t someone just make up a name to avoid that procedure?
I’m not necessarily saying it should be compulsory, but it certainly would be a courtesy.
Um… sorry James, but could you just expand on your opinion that it is reasonable to expect people to back up their pseudonyms with “some idea of where they’re coming from”? Personally, I’ve never really had much time for the sort of politics that features heavy use of the phrase “speaking as a…”. Either an argument makes sense or it doesn’t, I don’t really care who someone is or why they might say what they’ve said.
Of course, the case of astroturfing from opponent parties is a special case, but those people aren’t likely to be put off by such a voluntary code of conduct as you are suggesting.
Think Jennie makes a good point up top…i had a brief spell of moding my comments; let a false Luke Akehurst through because I was tierd and distracted and felt rather embaressed when it came out…of course I removed the fake but the point is it’s just as safe to allow things straight through…which is what I now do…also it is a question of conveinence….if you dont get round to modding for ages then it makes your blog less interactive…
Don’t people attach less weight to comments that are anonymous to some degree though?
I have a rough pecking order which is:
1) People I know who are identified by name or some very obvious monicker (eg Norfolk Blogger)
2) People who are by dint of comments over time clearly known by people I know (Andy Mayer, Jennie etc)
3) People who have an “online personality” evidenced by an existence outside of here (Chris Paul, Letters from a Tory)
4) People who regularly post here under the same name (Sesenco, Geoffry Payne)
5) The rest 🙂
It’s a little easier on LDV as there is a members forum where we can identify members etc.
Surely if we all adopted that system, few people would have much regard for you? 🙂
Shortly after I started my blog I set out my comments policy on it here.
I feel strongly that my blog is my space and so if I don’t feel like accepting any comment there then I’m entirely within my rights to do that.
However as long as that’s established, then I wouldn’t normally reject any sensible comments and in the 18 months or so I’ve been writing it, I haven’t rejected one yet (and I average just under 2 comments per post) – even though I’ve had lots of ones disagreeing with me and even attacking me.
But if I don’t want to accept because I think it falls out parameters of what I want to accept, or even that I really seriously just don’t like it, then I’d feel perfectly entitled not to publish it.
“Surely if we all adopted that system, few people would have much regard for you?”
Probably equally true in the real world 🙂
That’s not an entirely flippant response – advice etc that I gave to people only carries any value because of the experience/education/training that contributes to that view point.
Do I attach more weight to what Stuart Hall says if I just start chatting to him on a train journey or when he appears on an OU programme captioned as “Professor Stuart Hall”? James idea is to put people into a similar context (though I don’t see how it works without identifying them)
I understand your point to an extent. For example, I attach far less weight to a negative comment by a first-time “contributor”, for obvious reasons. Though if someone who had a blog & showed interest of concern & interest came here & made a thoughtful comment, it would immediately go onto an equal footing with others, regardless of whether that person was “respected”.
If one of the pillars of this blog made a post I disagreed with & considered to be wrong, I might go back & think again, but I’d take my stand if I were still convinced against them.
James doesn’t tell us what we should do with commentors like Oranjepan (sorry to single you out), whom I respect & who makes strong contributions. I myself am relatively anonymous, but you can figure out where I’m coming from without much difficulty (best to go by recent posts as I might have changed my mind 🙂 )
Having said all the above, I do groan when I see certain names, & I’m sure people do the same for me…
Is there some way that any comments from Laurence Boyce could be diverted to a serparate web site called “Laurence Boyce’s comments”? 😉
Sorry Laurence 😉
My policy is “Comments on individual posts are welcome but I reserve the right to edit or remove posts containing offensive language”.
The comments I disallow are
a) spam (which the spam filter usually catches)
and
b) swearing. I’ve had very little of the latter but there was one person who started posting comments of the ‘you are a ****’ variety which I deleted (if only because my Mum reads my blog too….).
Insults that come with some content and without swearing – eg ‘You are a moron to oppose ID cards’ – plus Laurence’s predictable sarcasm/wrath when I let my faith hang out are allowed.
Yes, it would be useful to be able to read all of my wisdom in one place. Seriously though, I’m running out of money and will probably have to retire from front line politics before too long. Enjoy it while it lasts!
P.S. I think everyone should use real names.
Allow everything, always – with the possible exceptions of libelous comments, impersonations (eg. Luke Akehurst) and links to websites that are involved in harmful practices (eg. child porn).
Incidentally, I’ve previously made a couple of critical (not abusive, nor personal) posts on blogs of LD Councilors, only for them never to appear. Elected officials blocking criticism of their policies is neither very liberal nor democratic, methinks.
@ Laurence – “I think everyone should use real names”
I only don’t post in my real name because my employer has a different view on the use of short breaks in my working day (and also the weekly unpaid overtime I do!)
YOUR SUCH A LOSER HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Well, someone had to.
Can I thank Laurence for rising unerringly to the bait?
http://bridgetfox.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/hell-isnt-other-people/
Bless him….
It is helpful having a name to a comment as you then know where they are coming from when they make their comment. But there are grounds for allowing anonymous posting.
I confess to very occasionally writing anonymously myself. But that’s usually been on sites like Lib Dem Voice or UK Polling Report and not personal blogs. It’s only when I want to give an honest and useful comment on something that’s been said, but where I know my comment could be used against the party if it was known to have come from a member of staff.
I only censor the following
1) Spam
2) Profanity
3) Libel
4) Identity theft
If somebody wants to write something inane or stupid I feel it reflects upon them rather than me so I let it lie.
Andy Hinton: to answer your question, I don’t accept that providing some information about your identity is equivalent to the notorious “as a…” politics of NUS et al. I also accept there are anonymous posters out there who have good reasons to be anonymous. I just think there are also people who use it as a pretext to being abusive (personally, I don’t need a pretext to be abusive). Ultimately, I find getting into an argument with someone I have no way of identifying much more alienating than someone who is being open about their identity – even if all I know about them is that they have a blog. Having some kind of biog, somewhere would be an act of good faith and improve the tone of debate.
As for my own comments policy, I don’t have one, except that spam and libel are right out. It is my blog and my prerogative – if you want an uncensored opportunity to respond to my nonsense, there is nothing to stop you from publishing it somewhere else. Identity theft I take seriously, but generally publish the comment with caveats (as I did with Miranda Grell until I established it was actually her). I would never be so hypocritical to ban profanity, although I do tend to pre-vet sweariness (on the basis that it indicates a greater than average chance of spam, libel and identity theft).
James, how do you identify with someone you’ve never met? Aren’t you really only identifying with their words, and their content?
If you only respond to the record and reputation associated with an identity, aren’t you just playing the man and not the ball? Isn’t the foundation of our stance in the debate on ID cards?
No, it merely signifies a willingness to be open and transparent, while using a pseudonym indicates a desire to be opaque.
I don’t see why that is so horrifying to you. When someone phones me up and refuses to identify themselves, they get short shrift. When someone tries selling me something on the doorstep without providing ID, they get short shrift.
Nor am I intellectualising it; I’m simply asking for greater transparency as a matter of courtesy. Why does that annoy you so much?
Yes, you make a fair enough point, but you aren’t being consistent.
I agree that in those circumstances courtesy is helpful, but I’m not selling you anything, so courtesy is irrelevant and the comparison is invalid (anyway you admit by your own example that even when identifiable a person isn’t necessarily courtious).
You aren’t selling anything?! Good grief – I refuse to believe you are really that naïve.
Of course you’re selling something. You’re selling yourself and you’re selling your opinions. You have as much of an interest in not trashing your own brand as anyone else. That is, unless you really are a troll (which for the avoidance of doubt I’m not accusing you of).
Idiomatically I certainly am selling myself and my ideas, but not in any _real_ sense – you’ve made a deliberate misrepresentation there.
The fact that you’ve responsed at all proves you are unable to keep to your own rules.
To paraphrase: I find getting into an argument with someone who argues coherently and passionately much more engaging and interesting that listening to the same old people all the time.
Do you concede yet?
Doesn’t a little bit of mystery excite you?
God, you really do get off on this don’t you? I bet you’re wearing a V for Vendetta mask right now.
Trust me, mate – you really aren’t anything close to exciting.
At a Lib Dem party last night someone thought I was Orangepan. Apparently, after a few drinks, it sounds like “Orange By Name”.