Teen tragedy and online anonymity
When word of tragedy spreads, such as the news that came out Monday about the deaths of five young people from Amherst -- four perished in a car crash and one died from illness -- it's something we want to talk about. At the water cooler (if those exist anymore), the coffee stand or the lunch table, we all say, "Did you hear? ... One of those girls went to grade school with my niece ... Didn't your neighbor, the math teacher, have him in class a couple of years ago? ... "
And our new gathering spots are online. Today's story on Buffalonews.com about the car crash has more than 65 comments from readers. The stories about both tragedies were much commented upon on this site and on the sites of Western New York's TV stations.
Some of the comments are respectful, some even informative. Others, not so much.
When word first came out about the death of 15-year-old Chelsea Oliver from a then-unspecified disease, some comment writers proclaimed that she died from swine flu. Another commenter responded that he was Oliver's father and that his daughter certainly did NOT die from swine flu. (Today's news story says that Oliver had breathing problems that developed into pneumonia and sepsis, and a connection to swine flu has not been ruled out.)
You know what bothers me the most about the opinions and speculation from those comment writers? The fact that they are anonymous. Anyone writing under a pseudonym can post anything they want in a forum for comments, and as long as they don't use profanity or otherwise violate the posting guidelines, they're free to say anything, with no accountability.
I know that in theory this is free speech and in the marketplace of ideas the truth should somehow rise above the din and the nonsense.
But I contrast this to public conversations that take place in forums such as Facebook, where one's identity is known. I can't post a comment on a Facebook page with a made-up identity such as "HeSaid2009," I can only post one as Greg Connors.
I noticed the same thing a few weeks back, when we were having a national conversation about health care reform. (This was somewhere between our national conversations about David Letterman and John and Kate Plus Eight.) A friend of mine started several discussions on Facebook about health care reform, and the debate was spirited -- occasionally heated -- between friends from each side of the political aisle.
I tend to avoid mentioning politics much on Facebook myself because I don't want to turn my wall into "Crossfire." I have good friends who are liberal and good friends who are conservative, and I see no need to provoke them into verbal sniping.
But you know what? Those debates on my friends' walls about health care stayed respectful because they were commenting under their real names.
The great blogger Seth Godin has written on this topic:
There are Facebook pages dedicated to memorializing the victims of the Clarence car crash and to Chelsea Oliver. If I were one of the parents of any of those children, I probably could not bear to look at those pages for several months. But I would eventually get to them, and when I did I would be glad for the fact that anyone leaving a note would have the guts to attach their real name to it.
--Greg
And our new gathering spots are online. Today's story on Buffalonews.com about the car crash has more than 65 comments from readers. The stories about both tragedies were much commented upon on this site and on the sites of Western New York's TV stations.
Some of the comments are respectful, some even informative. Others, not so much.
When word first came out about the death of 15-year-old Chelsea Oliver from a then-unspecified disease, some comment writers proclaimed that she died from swine flu. Another commenter responded that he was Oliver's father and that his daughter certainly did NOT die from swine flu. (Today's news story says that Oliver had breathing problems that developed into pneumonia and sepsis, and a connection to swine flu has not been ruled out.)
You know what bothers me the most about the opinions and speculation from those comment writers? The fact that they are anonymous. Anyone writing under a pseudonym can post anything they want in a forum for comments, and as long as they don't use profanity or otherwise violate the posting guidelines, they're free to say anything, with no accountability.
I know that in theory this is free speech and in the marketplace of ideas the truth should somehow rise above the din and the nonsense.
But I contrast this to public conversations that take place in forums such as Facebook, where one's identity is known. I can't post a comment on a Facebook page with a made-up identity such as "HeSaid2009," I can only post one as Greg Connors.
I noticed the same thing a few weeks back, when we were having a national conversation about health care reform. (This was somewhere between our national conversations about David Letterman and John and Kate Plus Eight.) A friend of mine started several discussions on Facebook about health care reform, and the debate was spirited -- occasionally heated -- between friends from each side of the political aisle.
I tend to avoid mentioning politics much on Facebook myself because I don't want to turn my wall into "Crossfire." I have good friends who are liberal and good friends who are conservative, and I see no need to provoke them into verbal sniping.
But you know what? Those debates on my friends' walls about health care stayed respectful because they were commenting under their real names.
The great blogger Seth Godin has written on this topic:
"Virus writers are always anonymous. Vicious political lies (with faked photoshop photos of political leaders, or false innuendo about personal lives) are always anonymous as well. Spam is anonymous. eBay fraudsters are anonymous too. It seems as though virtually all of the problems of the Net stem from this one flaw, and its one I’ve riffed on before. If we can eliminate anonymity online, we create a far more civil place."
--Greg
I personally wish the Buffalo News would do away with the comment section all together. It is nothing but a vehicle for people's hate, bigotry and ignorance.
Posted by: Sarah | November 03, 2009 at 01:19 PM
I agree with Sarah. Let's just read the news and let everyone keep their comments to themselves. We endured a similar situation and those idiots' comments only created more pain.
Posted by: John | November 03, 2009 at 03:17 PM
Well said, Greg! I often compare the bad manners (and false courage) of anonymous posters to the phenomenon of giving someone the one-finger salute when you are driving. Anonymity makes people more likely to misbehave. Most of us would DIE of embarrassment if we flipped off another driver-- then suddenly realized it was someone we knew.
I respectfully disagree with those who suggest the News do away with comments. That's an over-reaction, like outlawing driving because of road rage, to use another car and driver analogy.
Posted by: Libby56 | November 04, 2009 at 03:28 PM
People are simply disgusting. If the comments re the car accident weren't enough, you can read the comments on the article about the rape at the school in Niagara Falls. I feel sick.
Posted by: McBea | November 05, 2009 at 05:54 PM
No Libby it is not an overreaction. 95% of the comments on this website are trashy hate-filled insults that contribute NOTHING to society but to let anonymous cowards feel important. This is a NEWS site where people come to get NEWS not filth and trash. If people want to spread their insults that make them feel they are better than those they are condemning then let them start a blog. It is NOT NEWS.
Posted by: Sarah | November 06, 2009 at 08:12 AM
Is it really better to leave such volatile comments as you folks are complaining about (in your sick, perverted hatred of liberty) silenced and seething deep within a person as you folks propose? Or is it better to have it all out in the open and exposed to the antiseptic effects of the light of day?
Posted by: Buffalo Libertarian | November 09, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Greg wrote: "some comment writers proclaimed that she died from swine flu."
The News article you're referring to brought up swine flu in such a way as to suggest that it's what the girl had (for which I chastised the writer), yet you're not complaining about that. I guess it's okay for News writers to speculate but it is not okay for readers to do so?
Posted by: Buffalo Libertarian | November 09, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Blah blah blah Buffalo Libertarian. Same old same old. Of course anyone is free to say what they chose and people who read/hear it are free to think they're idiots and we're free to say so if we think so.
Posted by: McBea | November 09, 2009 at 07:58 PM
McBea wrote: "and people who read/hear it are free to think they're idiots and we're free to say so if we think so."
Yes, they most certainly are. Yet there are still those who have this sick, perverted need to have government control every aspect of their lives and to protect them from being even the least little bit offended - and I'm not referring to Canadians and Brits.
My point, of course, is that we should just get it all out into the open instead of trying to deny freedom to people whose words and thoughts make us want to vomit.
Posted by: Buffalo Libertarian | November 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I agree with Buffalo Libertarian. I don't enjoy being offended, but I take personal measures to avoid it. (I don't watch x-rated movies, I don't watch certain comedians, I don't listen to Janeane Garafalo, etc.) I don't want anyone else deciding what is offensive and then banning it.
Anyone who finds the comments on this site or any other site offensive or upsetting is free to click elsewhere.
Posted by: Libby56 | November 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Sarah, that is a lot of capital letters from someone who denies over-reacting. Just sayin.
Posted by: Libby56 | November 13, 2009 at 10:43 AM