Commenting online without fear, favour

ONE of the more disturbing things that a person might encounter whilst browsing the wonderful world of the Internet is the comments section of articles.

Feedback is important, for pretty much everyone in whatever they happen to be doing.

Outside perspective, given in a constructive, well-intentioned and thoughtful manner is invaluable in making decisions, making plans or simply doing better the next time around.

It's particularly important for writers, of all genres, especially for those who are writing for a larger audience, to know what they would like to read, or if toes have been tread upon (intentionally or otherwise).

Inevitably, many materials on-line have some sort of feedback mechanism, and many have simply adopted a simple form to fill in your comment.

So after an article is posted online, in but a heartbeat, the audience can share their applause or boos, throw flowers or rotten tomatoes, sing praises or gather up pitchforks and torches (either at the writer or his subject) in verbal form.

Not all of it is well written. Some may even be meaningless emotional outbursts of 'LOL' or, for some inexplicable desire to translate the act of giving feedback into a competitive achievement, 'First!'. Most of this is harmless, though in great quantity, it buries useful information under noise.

What might be more interesting, especially if one takes the mind-rending attempt to read through the comment sections of articles addressing hot-potato issues in current affairs, is the level of vitriolic, hateful and spiteful articulations of thought written, either in support of, but usually against whatever the author had to say.

I often wonder what kind of person would have the gall to deface a Facebook memorial page of a young girl who committed suicide.

In a news.com.au article by Claire Connelly, titled It just makes me happy when I can make someone angry - a special investigation into the dark world of trolling - takes a look into some aspects of the dark nature of the Internet world.

The article covers part of the Internet troll culture, interviewing one man who finds no remorse in writing 'How's it hanging', on a suicide victim's facebook memorial page, as well as those who find joy in provoking other people's anger.

Degradation of empathy through distance, social issues leading to the abuse of free-expression the Internet offers, were cited in discussions with psychiatrists and other researchers.

One of them, a James Heathers, of the University of Sydney was cited in the article stating that "the quality of online conversations in general seemed to be worsening by the day, and had now turned into a competition to see who can yell 'urrgggh lame' the loudest".

For the second part of the article also touched on the arguably beneficial side of trolling, citing the light-hearted fun contributed to the Internet, encouraging the presentation of an alternate viewpoint as well as a giant experiment with social media.

For both sides of the argument, a degree of anonymity is important, though those who believe themselves to be representing a form of social justice were more willing to reveal themselves for who they are, then those who, deep down somewhere, know something is really wrong.

One website I frequent, as part of one of my hobbies, have changed the feedback mechanism on their articles from semi-anonymous based forms to incorporating a Facebook sign-in to post.

From observation, the quality of feedback has improved.

Replies have became somewhat more coherent, some are even constructive, turning the audience who felt they only need to boo or cheer, into a forum that had something to discuss.

And ultimately, the Internet is THE forum for discussion, where ideas are unbound and expression can reach beyond the physical limits of travel.

Anonymity can be a shield, but an indiscriminate one, sheltering all without the consideration of good faith or trust.

It would be an ideal world if a person does not have to fear prejudice, anger, retribution or hatred when he expresses his views (it really doesn't help that those views happen to also have prejudice, anger, retribution and hatred embedded within them), but that isn't the case.

So the shield remains, essential so that despite only one out of a thousand voices have anything worthwhile to say, that one voice is not silenced.

After all, it takes a significant amount of courage and belief to be able to speak when you know you are not safe, or at risk of losing something or someone you know.

I would like to think that we are all aiming for a world where we can discuss things freely.

For that to happen, I think one needs to attain a certain level of maturity.

A world where, somehow, a mask, a shroud of identity in whatever form does not invoke disregard for consequences or empathy.

The Brunei Times