Popular Science online shutting down its comment section

[Windigo]

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments



Starting today, PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here's why.

By


Suzanne LaBarre
Posted 09.24.2013 at 8:15 am   

Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off.

It wasn't a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.

That is not to suggest that we are the only website in the world that attracts vexing commenters. Far from it. Nor is it to suggest that all, or even close to all, of our commenters are shrill, boorish specimens of the lower internet phyla. We have many delightful, thought-provoking commenters.

But even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story, recent research suggests. In one study led by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Brossard, 1,183 Americans read a fake blog post on nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt about the subject (are they wary of the benefits or supportive?). Then, through a randomly assigned condition, they read either epithet- and insult-laden comments ("If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you're an idiot" ) or civil comments. The results, as Brossard and coauthor Dietram A. Scheufele wrote in a New York Times op-ed:


Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.


In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.


Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.

Another, similarly designed study found that just firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters impacted readers' perception of science.

If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.

Even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story.

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
There are plenty of other ways to talk back to us, and to each other: through Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Pinterest, livechats, email, and more. We also plan to open the comments section on select articles that lend themselves to vigorous and intelligent discussion. We hope you'll chime in with your brightest thoughts. Don't do it for us. Do it for science.

Suzanne LaBarre is the online content director of Popular Science. Email suzanne.labarre at popsci dot com.





Unintelligent politicaly motivated people... ruining good things for good people

[Staggerwing]

Another sign of the impending triumph of the Willful Idiotocracy.

[Bison]

Or one could view it as suppression of a dissenting opinion.  You have a number of online places looking to do this.  Your opinion cannot be challenged if there isn't a venue for it.

I don't get what Popular Science could be all pissy about.  3/4 of the shit they predict for the future never happens but it doesn't mean it's not fun reading or thinking about possibilities.

[GDS_Starfury]

still waiting on those hover boards.   >:(

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I'm betting the comments were to this article:

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/most-depressing-climate-change-visualizations-todays-ipcc-report?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=7&con=IMG

[Bison]

If so, it's hard to believe they wouldn't have expected a impassioned debate.  Seems a little petty that any journal would be worried about criticism.   Isn't that the point of science to question?

[Windigo]

If so, it's hard to believe they wouldn't have expected a impassioned debate.  Seems a little petty that any journal would be worried about criticism.   Isn't that the point of science to question?

question yes... not to pontificate in an unreasoning manner

[Bison]

What's an unreasoning manner?  A position that is contrary to the presented theory? 

[LongBlade]

What's an unreasoning manner?  A position that is contrary to the presented theory?

Puh-lease, Bison. Call it what it is.

Heresy.

Shall we move this thread to where it belongs? There's already a consolidated thread on Alarmist Global Warming. Why create a second?

[Bison]

Well I think my point is more than just the Global Warming debate.  I was reading some news articles over the weekend about news sites shutting off the comments sections too.  My take is that in order to control the messaging, you must eliminate anything that descents from the message especially if it occurs on the very same page as the message.

[LongBlade]

That's a fair point, Bison.

Comments can be more difficult to moderate.

Typically the registration process is less controlled and often anonymous posts are allowed. It's not like a forum where you can more easily manage bad eggs.

Personally, I've never seen much point of comments under an article. It's much more appropriate to use a forum. Less convenient for posters, but thems the breaks.

[Steelgrave]

Meh, as someone who often comments on articles I read online, it is more often than not me letting off steam towards a biased writer or not being able to hold back over some brain-dead poster's comments. The lack of being able to do either would not substantially change my life, unless the resulting lower blood pressure extended it somewhat  ::)

[Bison]

it is more often than not me letting off steam towards a biased writer or not being able to hold back over some brain-dead poster's comments.

I think this is what they are trying to control.

[LongBlade]

it is more often than not me letting off steam towards a biased writer or not being able to hold back over some brain-dead poster's comments.

I think this is what they are trying to control.

If that's the problem then they're better off shutting the comments down. It certainly is irrelevant to the merits of science - or lack thereof.

[Windigo]

What's an unreasoning manner?  A position that is contrary to the presented theory?

a manner that that doesn't present logically nor respond in a logical way that allows for the comparison of the merit of different positions

e.g., I use birchbark as firestarter because my oldman says its the best ..., the presenter of the idea doesn't tell you why his oldman thought it was the best and therefore doesn't further the discussion

better is

I use birchbark as a firestarter because it burns when wet and it is hot enough for long enough that it will start wet twigs...., now you got something to discuss