First rate article from George Monbiot this morning in the Guardian with which I have whole hearted agreement. Here’s a chunk:
Reading comment threads on the Guardian's sites and elsewhere on the web, two patterns jump out at me. The first is that discussions of issues in which there's little money at stake tend to be a lot more civilised than debates about issues where companies stand to lose or gain billions: such as climate change, public health and corporate tax avoidance. These are often characterised by amazing levels of abuse and disruption.
Articles about the environment are hit harder by such tactics than any others. I love debate, and I often wade into the threads beneath my columns. But it's a depressing experience, as instead of contesting the issues I raise, many of those who disagree bombard me with infantile abuse, or just keep repeating a fiction, however often you discredit it. This ensures that an intelligent discussion is almost impossible — which appears to be the point.
The second pattern is the strong association between this tactic and a certain set of views: pro-corporate, anti-tax, anti-regulation. Both traditional conservatives and traditional progressives tend to be more willing to discuss an issue than these rightwing libertarians, many of whom seek to shut down debate.
So what's going on? I'm not suggesting that most of the people trying to derail these discussions are paid to do so, though I would be surprised if none were. I'm suggesting that some of the efforts to prevent intelligence from blooming seem to be organised, and that neither website hosts nor other commenters know how to respond.
Here’s his conclusion:
The internet is a remarkable gift, which has granted us one of the greatest democratic opportunities since universal suffrage. We're in danger of losing this global commons as it comes under assault from an army of trolls and flacks, many of them covertly organised or trained. The question for all of us — the Guardian, other websites, and everyone who benefits from this resource — is what we intend to do about it. It's time we fought back and reclaimed the internet for what it does best: exploring issues, testing ideas, opening the debate.
The answer is easy George and I use it: it’s called the delete button. Those seeking to close down debate — and I have absolutely no doubt many who seek to comment on this blog seek to do that — deserve nothing more sophisticated than straightforward deletion of their comments. They do not ad anything to discussion. And deleting them is called editorial freedom. It’s something we must preserve. It’s fundamental to free speech — something that it seems most libertarians are fundamentally opposed to. So let’s be bold, blatant and honest about the fact we’re deleting in the name of freedom — because that’s exactly what I do.
Libertarians posting here: you have been warned.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“….instead of contesting the issues I raise, many of those who disagree bombard me with infantile abuse, or just keep repeating a fiction, however often you discredit it. This ensures that an intelligent discussion is almost impossible…”
Bloggers and contributors can learn a lot from the Monbiot Doctrine. If you purport to encourage debate, do so – don’t close it down just because you dislike or disagree with somebody’s contribution to debate.
Good analysis from George.
The abundance of libertarian trolls was making CiF pretty much unreadable up to about 6 months ago or so. Since then there seem to has been an influx of good left-wing and centrist posters who are certainly making the commentary much more even.
CiF mediators don’t seem to use the delete button very much (unless you criticise extreme “liberal Tory” Guardian columnist Julian Glover, a man who writes some of the most badly thought-out rubbish I have ever read online – then you’ll find your comment gets deleted within about 20 minutes!) I find the “page down” button works just as well however – or even avoiding the CiF site altogether, which is what I do more and more these days. Life’s just too short.
A few months ago at the end of a 7pm Channel 4 news programme, Nigel Lawson debated climate change science with (presumably) a Professor from East Anglia University. Not in any way constructively. As the credits rolled, the mics were still live and Lawson said “I’ve no problem with the science. It’s the policies I don’t like.”
It’s very noticeable that a lot of the comments from the right are from a mindset that is absolutely unable to admit defeat. The financial crisis and global warming are examples of this. As George Monbiot says, it doesn’t matter how much evidence from proper scientists is produced, or how often the libertarians’ latest claims are shown to be lies, or half truths, they repeat the same rubbish.
The same with the financial crash; what more evidence do you need that the type of capitalism they espouse hasn’t benefited anybody in the long run except a wealthy elite who may, or may not include, these people themselves?
To these people, the truth isn’t how a scientest or mathematician or philosopher might define it, the truth is simply that you get your way while others don’t. Your policy is enacted by a government (e.g ever lower corporate taxes, or a refusal to reduce carbon emissions), instead of those espoused by your opponents; it doesn’t matter what you do to do this, only that you do it.
So instead of reasoned debate, there are ad hominen attacks, trolling, and all the rest of it.
@Justin
As a regular troll here I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say – but it usually doesn’t add to debate
I like George Monbiot, but there is another side to this. For years we’ve been subject to the views of journalists repeating their fiction, epitomised by writers such as James Delingpole and Janet Daley (the American political commentator on Question Time last week who writes for The Telegraph). Our only recourse was to write to the Letters Page, but by the time it was published, the debate had moved on.
So please George relax, this is just a little re-balancing.
When I read Monbiot’s article, I thought maybe you don’t know what to do George ‘but I know a man who does’! 🙂
This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.
Anyone who says I may not delete them will find they are subject to my editorial decision making process none the less
A comment under Monbiot’s article – probably doable for the guardian but too much legwork for bloggers like yourself:
“I think the answer is to have a two-tier system, with a real comments section, and then a comments dump. Those that contain ad hominem attacks, or are just “spam” comments, or generally lack civility, or don’t contain a meaningful argument, should get put into the comments dump for each article. Ones with a meaningful argument, but which are uncivil, would get put in the dump too. Commenters would quickly learn the ropes. Importantly, the dump would be publicly available and linked to the article, but you would have to click on a link at the bottom of the real comments to access it, so it’s not there in your face. Because it’s public, you still have accountability for what is being removed. You could even have an appeals process.
An awful lot of commentary is in response to what others say, not to the article itself – so you’d get a greater reduction in nonsense than what is editorially removed.
This way, civility and debate is restored, but because the comments dump is public, you largely dodge accusations of censorship. The only down side seems to be that it would require a bit more editorial legwork, which costs money. A price worth paying, in my opinion.”
@Nick Shaxson
I’m not sure WordPress is that sophisticated
And it’s not censorship anyway
I have no right to a letter in a paper
No one has right to a comment here
So candidly delete is a key part of freedom and one I will use
“To these people … the truth is simply that you get your way while others don’t.”
Indeed, it is a totally cynical exercise that is being conducted. They don’t even believe what they are saying themselves most of them. As Curtis pointed out on ‘The Power of Nightmares’, neo-Cons and power-mongers will put on a mask in order to exploit faith and other people’s fears for their own gain.
Throwing up a smoke screen and creating confusion among the public is also very helpful if you want to maintain the status quo. That way good people will too paralysed with indecision and lack of confidence to do anything at all – pretty much the situation we’re in now.