³ÉÈËXÕ¾

A few days after The Seattle Times announced it would be laying off a number of staffers because they’re struggling to keep newspapers relevant, The Everett Herald has decided to shut down their online comments – a feature that helps keep their digital content relevant.

They posted on their page:

“…The Daily Herald staff is hoping to remove some rancor from our corner of the world. We will be closing public comments on our website, Heraldnet.com, until early January — or, perhaps, longer.

A few dozen Heraldnet users seem to fixate on our comments space as if it’s a video game, captivated by the sniping, potshots and detonations. Pow. Bang. Boom.

If you pay attention to those comments, you’ve probably felt perplexed, distressed, enraged (or all of the above). There is little peace, goodwill or civility.

[…]

Public comments were meant to broaden and enrich civic discussions. Until we can get back on that track, The Daily Herald is taking a break.”

This is a dangerous move, even if it is totally understandable.

If you go on the comments section of any website, you’ll see trolls whose only life purpose seem to be sending snarky, rude comments to people. The ones who you recognize by screen name as being a misanthrope.

Related: SDOT and the Seattle Mayor use parking to kill relationships

They do it for attention and to fill a void in their life. They do what they do knowingly. They try to stifle conversation and are unable to be a contributing member of a civil dialogue about issues that are undoubtedly passionate and complex. But to give them the power to stifle all conversations around these articles and blogs seems dangerous to me. That’s exactly what they want: to stifle conversation. And rather than monitor and manage the detractors, the Herald is letting them stop the conversation.

The Herald says “If you pay attention to those comments, you’ve probably felt perplexed, distressed, enraged (or all of the above).”

You’re supposed to feel those things. It’s called the open-marketplace of ideas where you’re supposed to feel perplexed, and distressed, and certainly enraged. As destructive as the trolls can be, there is some value to them in that, in the very least, they teach us how to deal with people like them, which is an important life lessons.

But moreover, there’s this misconception sometimes that people who challenge our views are trolls unworthy of response. But there’s a clear difference between someone who goes online and responds by calling you a Nazi versus someone who responds to a post by questioning how you come off by staking out a particular position.

Now, you don’t have to respond to them, but I think it does a disservice to shield yourself from opposing viewpoints.

That’s what college students have been doing on campuses across this country – forcing people to take their viewpoint. Otherwise they’ll go on unhinged tirades like the Yale student who got mad that an administrator thought a college campus should challenge students intellectually.

That’s been the biggest problem with the Seattle City Council, for example, where everyone on the council is a different shade of Progressive. There’s no one there to call them out and question what they’re doing. Then all of a sudden they have a ton of problems with homelessness, cost of living, and traffic and they wonder how they got there. They got there because there was no one there to challenge them.

And that’s where blog and article comments become meaningful. You are challenged, even if by someone who comes off as less than friendly. And as much as I hate reading some of the comments on my own blog (the ones that offer nothing meaningful to the conversation), they do provide a reminder that there are people with opposing views out there, and that’s OK.