11–20 of 65 posts
If by "provocative" you mean "so painfully stupid and offensive as to make you weep for humanity," then sure, I guess.
Ignore YouTube and 4chan's /b/ board for the moment. If you look at some of the communities at reddit, for instance, there are subjects that are discussed thorougly which would never see the light of day if their authors had to appear before their friends with their full name and picture. Some of these discussions have shed light on parts of humanity and human nature that I would have never known about if it wasn't for anonymous internet forums. For instance interviews with psychopaths and murderers, mean stories about ex-girlfriends and boyfriends, candid and unpainted interviews with sex workers etc etc etc. In general, the stuff that doesn't come up in polite conversation and everyone pretends not to be associated with. Some of these discussions have changed my views on both political issues and more mundane things. All because someone is suddenly allowed to broadcast forbidden stories to a large crowd. And people are allowed to comment on it without fear of being judged or socially persecuted.
The difference in the style of comments on Facebook and reddit perfectly exemplify what happens with civil discussion when people are allowed to be anonymous, and the huge difference in behavior and mindset that this causes in Western society. It is a pretty big deal.
I like how Quora mixes real names and anonymity to try to get the best of both worlds. Google Knol I think supported this, too, but it's a ghost town.
Anon advantages (think Reddit): * people are more honest, about negative reactions at least * humor works (doesn't really work on facebook) * more comfortable to discuss sensitive or embarrassing issues
Real name advantages (think Quora, Google+, some twitterers): * more constructive dialog * you can know more about the background of a person contributing - their experience, qualifications, or conflicts of interest
Why else would Facebook comments be so bad and sterile? Facebook's content consists mainly of more narcissistic fluff than even a beauty magazine could contain.
Commenters tend to rally behind the bully and pick on anyone who has a different point of view. Most of the time a reply to a different point of view starts of by first insulting the commenter and then explaining why they are wrong about everything.
Funny how we never leave high school....
(I work for a newspaper... )
I think everyone here is missing the point of moot's comment. I read this as commentary on anonymity and honest discussion. Ignore YouTube and 4chan's /b/ board for the moment. If you look at some of the communities at reddit, for instance, there are subjects that are discussed thorougly which would never see the light of day if their authors had to appear before their friends with their full name and picture. Some o…
Personally, I find that the quality of Youtube comments varies with the content of the video. Some users post videos that always lead to excellent discussion. I think the quality of Youtube comments reflects the quality of the content, more than anything else. Why else would Facebook comments be so bad and sterile? Facebook's content consists mainly of more narcissistic fluff than even a beauty magazine could contain…
Speaking of quality, anyone having watched TV lately?
I wish there were more proactive comments on newspaper websites. I think communities everywhere are missing out on a great opportunity to communicate, exchange ideas, and bring real change to real problems in their own towns. Most of the time newspaper comments (in my community) are about how illegal immigration is to blame for EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING. Commenters tend to rally behind the bully and pick on an…
1) Promote and recognize good comments 2) Remove offensive or non-constructive ones
This form of hand curiation sets down rules and expectations which the community at large than reaches for.
If you dont set down rules of course your discussion forums will disolve into petty nonsense. The loudest, dumbest voice always wins in a shouting match merely by employing a denial-of-ground strategy.
About topics like Religion it is obvious well known fact it will provoke that.
I think it shows us what some people really think and whata negative effect of unregulated users can cause. So a thing i appreciate of Facebook valueing real users but yutube on the other hand has great content.
another difference is that facebook comments are limited in users and youtube , where a video has millions of views, your comments will most likely be seen by more.
Also there is no necissity to be friends on youtube with the commentator or video creater to make posts. So anyone can insult without any real consquences. Maybe you must add the video creator if you wanna post videos, only fans or constructive critics would come as the negative users will be easier traceable. I would not post something to a facebook friend like some do on youtube as ill be shunned.
So the users actually inddirectly monitor such ations. remember private pyle in the army in full metal jacket when he steals the donouts and they soap bar him. Like that but chilled.