Sorry this is long. Hopefully it’s worthwhile though…

THE PROBLEM
My name is Steve. I'm from West Michigan, but I'm in the Army and currently stationed in Hawaii.

The reason I visit TownHall is because of the comment function. I rarely agree with any of the columnists, but the comments by readers gives me an insight into why real people do agree with the contributers to TH.

In this case, however, I do agree with a few things. I agree with Mr. Prager’s premise that website comment sections often become mired in volatile bickering and hateful name calling. I also agree that it’s a problem. Furthermore, I agree that anonymity allows that problem to exist.

But his solution leaves much to be desired. It’s a knee-jerk reaction harkening back to ‘the good ‘ole days’ when the only feedback to news stories and opinion columns was letters to the editor, which were screened and edited for grammar, style and content. Fixing the problem by making web commenters provide personal information is not realistic, not helpful and beyond that, it’s unsafe.

To begin with, let’s look at what the comment section is: I don’t think comment sections on blogs and news sites are an extension of letters to the editor, but rather a whole new animal. It’s really more of a time-delayed chat room with a general focus.

Print media used to be a one-way conversation. But internet media (print and broadcast) are opening the door to something new. It’s not really a two-way conversation, as the initial writers don’t generally (in my experience) respond to the comments section; but it gives readers and viewers the opportunity to discuss the issues between themselves and create dialogue that wouldn’t exist otherwise. Hence my comparison to a chat room with a narrower focus of the article, rather than something like ‘dog lovers.’ I say time delayed because unlike a traditional chat room, it’s not real-time conversations.

In general, I think  that’s a good thing. But, just like The Force, there is a good side, and a dark side. That open forum for discussion is going to draw dissidents who will used any course of action to get their own point across. And most people, on either side of the issue, don’t really care to read that stuff. But putting a name and city next to the posting will not eliminate the anonymity that makes those comments possible. A guy named ‘Jeff from Dallas’ could really be ‘Susan from San Francisco.’ And whether susan shows up on TH as the screen name ‘Crazy_Lib,’ or as ‘Jeff from Dallas,’ she’s still anonymous to everyone else posting, so she can still write useless hate. The only way to truly take her anonymity would be requiring her to give her first and last name as well as her address and email, and to somehow verify it. But that’s just unsafe; even if she has a dissenting opinion that’s well written and respectful.

MY SOLUTION
Some sites are better at working with comments than others, but since anyone reading this is obviously familiar with TH, I’ll use this as my example.

Some of my observations about the comment section on this site:
There’s a a pretty consistent pattern to comments on TH.
1. There are three basic types of comments posted here. Comments on the original column, comments on the comments, and heated bickering and name-calling, which is based on either of the aforementioned.
2. The first dozen or so comments are generally in reference to the actual column. Those first few comments are generally respectful, even when they are in disagreement.
3. After that, most of the posts are arguments between commenters and often have nothing to do with the original article. Those conversations are hard to follow because TH uses a single thread for all comments. Additionally, the really hateful stuff usually starts coming out then.
4. When the comments get past about 20, it becomes difficult to find comments about the actual article between all of the conversations and bickering, therefore, some really good thoughts are lost in the muck.

That the comment section exists is great. But the way the comment section runs is awful, and although anonymity makes more volatile arguments possible, the setup of the comment sections makes it visible to more readers.

A system of embedded threads would streamline the process and keep heated comments mainly between the two people arguing.

Basically, if someone wants to respond to the article, s/he will click ‘comment on the column.’ But to take it a step further, anyone who wants to comment on the comment, rather than the initial article, will click ‘comment on the comment’ under the comment.

To see a good example of what I mean, check out how amazon.com does their reviews. Below each review is the link ‘comment.’ If there are comments it shows the number of comments in parentheses. The benefit is that on the surface, the reader only sees the response to the column itself, but if he sees a comment that intrigues him, he can start a dialogue with that poster. And if that dialogue gets heated, the rest of us only see it if we also want to read the comments on the comment. To see an example of a comment with comments, look up Ann Coulter’s new book. She’s so revered and detested that it gets people to comment on comments.

My solution wouldn’t get rid of the angry bickering, but I think it would bring a certain amount of order to the conversations that would allow more constructive dialogue and decrease the visibility of heated arguments.

WHERE I DISAGREE
I disagree with Prager’s desire to completely eliminate the bickering. It gets heated and irrational sometimes, but I believe it’s a necessary evil.

I think it’s immature when people just send obscenity-laced hate messages in response to a column, but obscenity-laced angry messages in a heated debate is something else entirely, I think.

I know that for me, and I’m sure this is true of many people, it takes those heated arguments without thought to say things that make me realize my own faults and hypocrisies and irrational ideas that I don’t even realize I have until that moment. Heated debate, even if it becomes less than civilized, is a good way to sort out thoughts. So I think getting rid of that is a bad idea, but I also know that most people don’t want to read my arguments with someone else, and I don’t want to wade through 500 comments to find the ones with substance.