It is fallacy to believe that a website’s
commenting community is composed of a balance of negative and positive
viewpoints.
A commenter space is more positive where
users are subject to common banning. Where bans are less common, the negativity
flourishes.
That is why YouTube comment feeds are ‘toxic’,
while the comment feeds found on newspaper’s websites are generally more civilised.
For legitimate commenters, arguments with
insults often result in bans and so do comments that criticise a publication.
Perhaps someone is frequently leaving
negative comments on posts that don’t have many other comments on them.
Say maybe a commenter posts criticism in a harsh
way.
Both aforementioned types of commenters are
guaranteed to be banned on some sites but left alone on others.
It is for reasons such as these, that people
tend to make a conscious effort to comment positively… and why negative or
critical dialogs are not nearly as commonly seen as they would be – without
banning and moderation neutering the user base.
People make the mistake of perceiving public
opinion as in accordance with a specific platform’s commenter space. Comment conclusions
from one platform are not indicative of anything but the platforms’ dynamics.
So, what people say on Youtube, Disqus, Twitter and
Facebook can literally mean nothing .. in relation to overall real-world reactions.
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you disagree, Comment Here. If you don't, Comment Here