New York Times ethicist Randy Cohen wrote a blog post about the “hideous subculture” of anonymous blog comments, in which he explores whether or not there is something we can do to improve the situation.

The argument for allowing readers to continue commenting without restriction is to preserve a free and healthy flow of ideas. But Cohen mentions that even the Times, a website with an ostensibly literate and thoughtful readership, censors its comments to exclude ‘personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence and SHOUTING.’ This seems to do nothing to compromise the healthy flow of ideas, as evidenced by the hundreds of comments which often accompany most Times articles and the spirited debates therein.

The first question for me is not What can we do about this?¹ but What is causing this?

In an attempt to promote interactivity in a way that is not too demanding of their readers, many websites have included quick and dirty polls, which say things like:

What do you think of Jessica Simpson’s new hair?
LOVE IT
HATE IT

Do you like Jennifer Aniston?
SHE’S MY FAVORITE
I HOPE SHE DROPS DEAD

This is the type of decision making and self-expression that most people on the internet are faced with every day. We have traded subtlety for directness, nuance for speed, and courtesy for unrestricted expression. As such, the majority of our population is losing the ability and the desire to contemplate the finer points of an issue, to seek out the grey.

We have grown accustomed to commenting about entities—a film, a book, a celebrity—not to the creators of those entities or to the entities themselves, but to a third party, which acts a buffer for our vitriol. When I tell People magazine that I hope a certain celebrity drops dead or that I think so-and-so’s new book is total crap, I am not expecting the celebrity or the author to ever see my remarks. In an environment where readers are often cut off from the objects of their preoccupation, readers are not encouraged to consider the full impact of their words. Anyone who writes online has experienced the pain of receiving hateful comments from readers who exist in this chronically disconnected state.

These explanations do not encapsulate the entire problem, but certainly if you put together a penchant for black and white thinking—something is either good or bad, someone should either be given an award or be killed—with a lack of consideration for the person about whom you are expressing your opinion, it creates a potentially destructive situation.

Further complicating the matter, Cohen includes a quote from the writer Katha Pollitt, almost as an aside, which states that ‘…women writers on the Internet receive vastly more hateful comments than male writers.’

This makes me wonder if vulnerability doesn’t play a part in people’s perceptions. Is it possible that we are drawn to online commenting because it is the one way in which we can get through to an otherwise impervious figure, someone whom we would otherwise have no means to contact? Is their online presence like the black joints of a Storm Trooper, the only place in their hard white shell that a bullet can penetrate? If that’s true than perhaps we are even more drawn to those we perceive as being the most vulnerable, which in this society includes women. Are they an easier target?

Does anyone have any insights into this they would like to share?
HELL, NO. I WOULDN’T COMMENT ON YOUR SITE IF IT WAS THE LAST SITE ON EARTH.
YES, READ MY COMMENT BELOW. THEN LET’S MOVE TO THE COUNTRY AND HAVE BABIES.