Oh FriendFeed, What You Really Need is Accountability
Last month, we posed the question "are trolls ruining social media?" - a topic that seems to have reared its ugly head once again over the weekend, this time with a specific focus on FriendFeed and the supposed angry mobs that form there. But let's get real for a minute. Although it's shocking that some FriendFeed users post terrible, hurtful things while using their real names, posting angry and mean comments is nothing new to the internet. Other social communities, including Digg and YouTube, also deal with this issue - heck, they're even known for it!
But instead of continually pointing out the problem, maybe it's time for the innovators in our community to start thinking up solutions. Here's one we just thought up...let us know what you think.
Being Hateful, But Not Anonymously?
The pseudo-anonymity of the internet - or at the very least, the ability to write something cruel without having to face the person eye-to-eye - often leads people to express themselves in ways that are far from how they would behave in real life. In the past, this typically led people to hide behind pseudonyms and screen names so they could post whatever they wanted without fear of repercussions.
That's why I recently proposed that some communities put an end to online anonymity, thinking that if you removed the masks from people's identities, they would start behaving properly. Of course, this led to a lot of debate in the comments. Obviously, I never meant that anonymity needed to be banned from the internet entirely - the world isn't ready for that! - but there are some places where it doesn't serve much of a purpose. (Tech blogs, for instance.)
People still hated the idea.
As a blogger who writes every day using my real name, it's hard to sympathize with the need to post tech blog comments anonymously. Everything a blogger writes, we're held accountable for. Why shouldn't other community contributors be treated the same?
But as it turns out, there was a huge flaw in my reasoning in that post. I focused on whether or not someone should use their real name when posting, but that's not the issue at all. It's not really anonymity that's to blame for the troll-like behavior we're seeing in online communities, it's the lack of accountability.
That's why (some) people seem comfortable posting mean-spirited comments on sites like FriendFeed using their real name and their real identities to do so. You see, when you post on FriendFeed, your comment quickly disappears into the site's "real-time flow" of information. Someone watching the stream sees it only momentarily, before it's replaced with others. Even within the "angry mob" threads themselves, a single comment easily gets lost among hundreds of others.
So although the comment is attached to a real name, it's a single needle in a haystack of opinion. There's no way to see, at-a-glance, what that person's commenting history was like. Were they usually nice and this angry post was an exception? Or did they make a habit of trolling? There's simply no way to know.
What's the Solution?
We don't have any answers yet, just ideas. But maybe it's time that we started focusing on solutions instead of pointing the finger at the web services...as if somehow FriendFeed itself (or Digg or YouTube for that matter) are to blame for this shameful aspect of human behavior.
Jason Kaneshiro of Webomatica proposes that FriendFeed implement threaded comments with the ability to rate comments up or down. While I agree that would be a good first step in helping the community moderate the vitriol, it certainly doesn't stop hateful comments from occurring in the first place (just look at Digg!).
Perhaps what we need is a rating system for the personalities of community participants. Think of it like eBay's "star" ratings, but instead of grading a seller on how quickly an order was shipped, etc., you'd rate each others' contributions to a community.
Imagine how this could work on FriendFeed, for example. People could rate others' comments and the aggregation of the communities' ratings would give overall insight to that person's personality. Was the comment insightful? Kind? Spammy? Mean? Were you helping a newbie feel included? Were you answering a question or participating in a poll? Do you tend to leave positive comments about X company while being negative about Y? The list could go on and on.
The system should also show not just how a single comment was rated, but what that person's overall rating is along with a history of their contributions.
If participants knew that their every action, whether "anonymous" or not, was adding up to paint an overall picture of who they really were, would this be enough of an equivalent to the kind of accountability we have in real life? The sort of accountability where people are judged on their behavior over time, and not for a single uttered statement?
Rating systems are hardly a new idea - many online communities use badges and other methods for rewarding helpful participation. But rating systems that extend beyond simply rewarding good behavior to publicizing the bad, too, don't really exist today...at least when it comes to comments and communities.
It's hard to imagine exactly what a system like this would look like, but that's where UI designers would need to flex their muscles and create something that didn't take away from the overall experience while also encouraging people to rate comments both positive and negative, not just the ones they hated.
Is this a terrible idea? If so, we know you'll set us straight. That is, after all, what the comments are for. But if you think it's awful, at least be so kind as to suggest a better alternative.
Image credit: flickr user takingthemoney
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Good idea...
This is pretty much what SezWho is designed to do.
Check it out (now with js-kit).
You can be anon and still be respectful of your fellow users. I kind of like Sarah's voting idea.
Posted by: Tech Introvert
|
June 29, 2009 9:08 AM
Great insights Sarah! I completely agree with your proposal for a rating system of community participants.
However, we also should think of other ways to measure accountability. Maybe one should take into account the number of eyeballs/followers as well. I'm not sure how this could be implemented, but nonetheless I believe accountability has also something to do with your influence.
Any thoughts on this one?
I'm also eager to know how it could be implemented UX wise.
There is more to come, but why u joined tis FF hatred list
Posted by: Michael_techie
|
June 29, 2009 9:08 AM
@Kris: Are you thinking that more followers someone has, the more likely they are to be "better behaved"? Hmmm....
You can check a person's commenting history by looking at his comments page. It's not the easiest thing to do because you have to expand collapsed comment lists but there is that.
Posted by: Morton Fox
|
June 29, 2009 9:15 AM
As you pointed out Sarah, singling out Friendfeed this week wasn't really the answer. The reality here is that the Friendfeed team (as opposed to almost all the others) listens and reacts quickly (OFTEN) to user comments in the Friendfeed Feedback room. (IE: It's up to us?!)
Sarah - This is a great idea. As you said though, it'll require some deep thought at the development level. The idea that you could accumulate social capital or "Whuffie" (See Tara Hunt's Book "The Whuffie Factor") seems inspired. The things I would worry about as a developer are:
1. Reducing comment count and overall interaction at the expense of creating accountability, and
2. Reducing the incentive to leave valuable negative comments that may receive a negative reaction by the community
The problem with implementing systems that measure reputation and clout is that, when you create rules people will play by them in the strictest sense and gaming will occur that may yield unintended negative consequences that outweigh the initial problem you were trying to solve.
This is an inspired idea, though, for sure. I'll be interested to see what else comes out of this discussion.
There is certainly a need for dealing effectively with trolls and troll behaviors. Yet, I cannot see how the proposal could work. There is no method to determine with high degree of probability who is who. For instance, I might have three different accounts, with quasi-real names and use different photos per account so that I am taken for another person. What cure rating could bring to this? The moment one of my personas risks degrading, I switch to the next or abandon it completely.
One idea....does anyone remember the "warn" function on the old AOL Instant Messenger? You could warn a person and increase their warning level and then lock them out of their account if their level got high enough. It wasn't a vote up or down, rather, a way to send a social message. I wonder if that would work. Perhaps that would work better...if enough people "warned" you by clicking a button that was attached to your profile, you could be locked out of your account for a predetermined period of time. It might be a simpler implementation...
FriendFeed (et al) should implement a ignore person setting. Once someone reaches a certain threshold (say, 51% of the readers actively choose to ignore their vitriol), their comments/replies should be automatically moderated. That way, the thread starter could choose to allow it or not. This would give grief-ers a short rope with which they could hang themselves.
Mountain out of a molehill
Posted by: Geoff Schultz
|
June 29, 2009 9:29 AM
But Friend Feed has accountability... if someone doesn't like your behavior, they can block you. If they don't like specific content, they can hide it. If they think you're boring or horrible, then they don't subscribe. If you don't feed the trolls, they don't matter.
Posted by: Jennifer Dittrich
|
June 29, 2009 9:32 AM
You've pretty much covered what I was going to suggest in the comments to your previous article but was too lazy. Reputation/rating rewards people for making a positive contribution to online communities. The biggest problem is trying to weight the ratings or avoid trolls rewarding each other for being trolls. You'd almost need three or four categories - if someone makes a funny comment it's possible that it would be voted up more than if someone makes a technical comment.
Sometimes the rating system is yet another tool used by trolls to annoy people and make pests of themselves. Yahoo Buzz is a prime example.
Often, you'll see a nasty comment with a lot of thumbs up. On the same board, if you look at a comment that had been thumbed way down, you'll see it's totally harmless and reasonable. It's obvious someone(s) went through the comments knocking down the regular posters to make their rude comments stand out.
If someone is intent on being anti-social, they'll manipulate the ratting system. Innocent people have no way to defend themselves. A customer service nightmare in the making.
@Steffan: I'm glad I got you inspired and thinking about this! :) That "warn" idea is intriguing, too.
@Nikos: Sure, if one really want to troll, they could keep creating new accounts, but that's a lot of work isn't it? Besides, each new account would quickly reflect their trolling behavior, so they'd never really "get away" with it.
@Jennifer: I disagree. It's not as simple as "don't feed the trolls" anymore. "Normal" people are leaving the occasional troll-like comment these days (esp when caught up in a heated discussion), but one nasty comment shouldn't mean I have to hide them entirely or unsubscribe. Esp if they often contribute other comments of value. I'd like a system where I can tell if someone's mean comment was a one-time off-the-wall outburst or just their everyday behavior, then make a decision.
Posted by: Sarah Perez
|
June 29, 2009 10:00 AM
@Jonathan There's *got* to be away to create a system that doesn't allow trolls to reward other trolls. We just need someone much smarter than me to create it!
+100 Geoff. Or did I miss something? Maybe I'm only subbed to nice people?
Posted by: Shey
|
June 29, 2009 10:06 AM
@Sarah - you can go to someone's page and see what other comments they've left, not just their content. (Admittedly, if they have a private feed, that does make it more difficult.) I can see the temptation of something like a "warning" system, but as AOL found out: that's easily manipulated by the trolls themselves to lock out people they disagree with.
Posted by: Jennifer Dittrich
|
June 29, 2009 10:13 AM
@Jennifer: Not only is it difficult to see their comments if their feed is private, I'd say that having to read through all their comments to determine the nature of the "commenting personality" isn't the most efficient system. I appreciate you pointing out there is a way to do this now, but I think it could be improved. Maybe AOL's warning system is not the answer, but there are a lot of very smart developers out there. I believe someone could come up with a modern, useful version of a ratings system that really works & isn't easily manipulated.
Posted by: Sarah Perez
|
June 29, 2009 10:38 AM
@Shey: it's a proposal for a system that has usefulness beyond just FriendFeed. Maybe you don't have problems on FF, but wouldn't you like something on Digg? Or YouTube?
Posted by: Sarah Perez
|
June 29, 2009 10:42 AM
It really sucks when big blogs write hatred messages about FF users
Posted by: Michael_techie
|
June 29, 2009 10:45 AM
As the owner of a thread I'd love to be able to mark comments as "great" or "naughty" or "hateful" or other things. Your ideas are good ones too. I also wish I could close down threads that get nasty, or hide them from being included in my public timeline, while making them still visible to search and stuff. The real answer, though, is to start private rooms where people are invited into participate. The public Internet will never get fixed. Even people with accountability and popularity will get nasty once in a while but having a white-list invite system will keep things the cleanest.
@Sarah: I think it really can be a matter of scale as well; analyzing my own feed, it is pretty tiny compared to a lot of other people. I was viewing it based on just my account, where that level is still pretty manageable. I wonder if something like Slashdot's comment rating system could come into play? You'd be able to see if someone was ranked consistently as "insightful" or "trollish" without too much trouble.
Posted by: Jennifer Dittrich
|
June 29, 2009 10:50 AM
@Jennifer: Agreed, scale can be an issue. And yes, Slashdot system seems like a good place to start...it just needs to be expanded beyond the comment-level to actually rank the account as a whole. Oh, and it needs to be de-geekified, too! :)
Posted by: Sarah Perez
|
June 29, 2009 11:11 AM
@Robert: "The public Internet will never get fixed."
That just makes me sad. :(
Sarah-I appreciate your idea .But why not comment moderation before voting .Can we have an automated comment analyzer /text analyzer to see if a comment needs further attention before posting .Not sure about the resources required to achieve this though.
http://tekunik.blogspot.com
Sarah, I ab 100% with you. I think, and we're moving closer to this, using one's real name is the corner stone to preventing(most) troll behavior.
I prefer the option of voting up or down individual comments on Friendfeed, it's more immediate and (I think anyway) it can be gamed less than a star rating for users.
@Sarah Definitely!
Posted by: Shey
|
June 29, 2009 12:07 PM
I happen to be a UX designer and this is a problem that has come up many times in the last few years. In fact, there are a couple social networks I've worked on that discussed similar solutions. Unfortunately, I don't think there are any obvious solutions for this one.
I agree that accountability, or lack thereof, was the real culprit. However, every solution we considered, ratings included, ran into a few problems (most of which have been mentioned in comments already). I don't think simple ratings will a) create an accurate picture of the individuals or b) effectively minimize trolling in the first place. Unfortunately, I don't really have a solution.
One thing I do find interesting is how old the problem really is. This started to become a problem when printing press costs dropped in the 18th century (just read some of the pamphlets released by the US founding fathers, it's most entertaining when they simply start calling each other names). Maybe the expectation for intelligent debate is simply unreasonable. Even the most intelligent debaters occasionally break down and simply attack one another. Few politicians find success without the tactic. Even academics have their moments. What if, and I don't like the idea, we simply aren't all that civilized and technology is just making those warts more apparent?
One of the blogs I run has a rating system for comments. I put it on there as an experiment but will probably move the whole commenting system over to something more robust. Rating is okay. A simple thumbs up or thumbs down can be effective, yes. But in a mob situation, no one is going to stop and rate a post, honestly. They're in real time, the heat of the moment, and they're hunting the smell of blood.
We used to see this all the time on the CNN communities. Real time, real names, real flames, real obscenity, real hate. Some of the ugliest expression of passion I've ever seen. Nothing in the geek world comes near to what we saw there. Ultimately the only way to end it was to shut it down for a time-out for all parties. Worked like a charm, just like it does for two-year olds. Extreme measures, yes.
We do have some great tools in place. User thread moderation, blocking specific users, etc. all help to keep communities far more civil than in the past. Maybe we should focus on how to use those without being guilted about squelching 'free speech'.
It appears to me that they’ve most likely been hacked.
I second Scoble. on the bit of the public internet never getting being able to get fixed without you breaking it or making it worse.
Last time i called you naive, but maybe you are just a hopeless romantic Sarah. i stand corrected.
As someone who was there with the birth of the Modern Web and that have seen pretty much wave after wave of trolling and mischief innovation as the web evolved in its ascension to mainstream utility. i know what usually happens when there is sudden totalitarian or accountability controls in a community:
1.-The community dies as its participation suddenly vanishes (which means that the hits and page views also go down)
2.-The community attracts the wrong people and ends up getting attacked and hacked to oblivion
3.-The controls gets circumvented and the controls are left up worthless like nothing had really changed.
The quest to vanquish internet mischief (and T and H and A) is like the war on drugs and piracy = futile
The best way continues to be invisible moderation: you let the comments go through have their minutes of life and then erase them without any warning or trace. it provides a frictionless, non confrontational or disclosed stance to moderation and control that works well. yes. you need to pay someone to play monitor. but it continues to be the best way.
Hatrın Vardır gozumde ALLAH CeZanı verecek
gel GeL Hadi geL trAbzonA geL
Commenting only possible with real name, this will help a lot..
I would welcome the ability to rate each others' contributions to the community, the ability to moderate would be valuable. Maybe if a user receives a significant negative rating over a short period of time that they are prevented from posting for a set duration!
"the" community, "the" accountability index. But there are more than one intersecting communities and more than one ways to value accountability. Please don't try to fit everyone in one size..
Posted by: Panayotis Vryonis
|
June 30, 2009 9:02 AM
WAAAA.... its the internet and you said something I don't like.... and now that I don't know who you are to come back at you I'm angry WAAAA... can't figure out how to use tools like HIDE or BLOCK!... (figure it out people and ignore the idiots.)
Posted by: CW™
|
June 30, 2009 9:04 AM
In this regard, I think Internet users should be very careful In this regard. Thank you. Was a very useful article
thanks
türk mvg kaln türk cossacks
thanks...
html kod kralı mvg site html kod kralı
html kod kralı mvg site html kod kralı
I saw an article today that hopes these types of devices or applications may be the saviour for the newspapers. I still have my doubts because you don't need a kindle to get your news, it's still free online.