Small political lobbies wield huge influence through Internet trolls and apambots

(Ed Note: “trolls” – comments, put out in large numbers by a political lobby – can be by people paid to send them “Spambots” are computer generated messages – can be put out in thousands to swamp articles with supposedly genuine opinion comments by individual people)

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

Why We’re Shutting Off Our Comments http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comment

Starting today, PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here’s why. By Suzanne LaBarre 09.24.2013

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. Scheufelewrote 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 even 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.

September 25, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, media

1 Comment »

shut the comments and stop the dialogue.. what a great idea.. trolls visit a site without moderation or rules and site folds up.. .. better to moderate a bit.. but allow voices of dissent .. its called democrasy.. and let anonymous deal with the more obvious brain dead trolls.. but dissent and other views are to be encouraged imo.. also, people learn to skip pass troll like and inpleasant comments.. and a regular crowd of good commenters/contributers will be easy to find amongst the clutter..

funny you cant comment on La Barres posit.. smacks of Science Media Centre control of science and pressure from the corporations legal departments.. time to fold Popular Science imo and become a free for all blog.. but it depends on how committed you are to frre and open science withought the BS national security crap and copyright etc stuff.

notice the site is qouting the BBC on its latest article.. 🙂 hahaha!! bbc has no science.. look at the weekly output and you will find a privately funded SMC (oddly registered as a charuty- the usual tax avoidance trick..) informing the mmedia about the “RIGHT” way to think about science… ignoring the fact that the corporations are employing people with autism to work this complicated science/computer stuff out… so the “rightly” informed scientists cant work their way out of a wet paper bag unless some in the science community think outside the box.. and thats what you can find in the comments, unless you think the PTB/trolls are using NLP?? dont think so.. its not worked on me for the last 3 years.. thats called “use of critical tthinking skills”

was going to post this on the comments but….. li=ucky this blog believes in democrasy.. even my mate roger frequents the halls and leaves critiques .. there is room for us alll!! WE ARE NOT SHEEP!! so dont treat us like such Suzzane.. er good luck with your version of good reporting btw.. only 1 article on fukushima this year?? the biggest science disaster incorporating love, hate, fractured communities, isotopes, large metal things.. and not worth a sentnece or 2?? no wonder you got trolled .. nuclear-news is for pro and anti nukes alike .. and very little problems as people like to be informed about both sides of the argument.. “keep you friends close but your enemy closer” and that helps the overall discourse too!

And btw, next time you close your comments, allow your readers to chime in first.. even the trolls.. the threat of closure might have been enough.. know you relied on a “study” without crowd sourcing with people that have education and experience in Psychology.. you might have come to a solution,,

unless your legal advisor advised it.. Sign `o` the times???????
come on suzanne, join us on the dark side of the internet.. thats where real ideas and posits are to be found.. web peer reviewed.. scares the likes of the Science media Centres and the bbc to death imo
We need to do this for our kids!!
peace
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comment
(i hope suzanne finds this comment on a pingback? 🙂 )
or will she get pingbacks now there are no comments?? duhh!

Comment by arclight2011part2 | September 25, 2013 | Reply

nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope