Samuel D. James
Over the weekend, I sent an email to my editor and the Patheos technical team requesting that the commenting sections on my blog be permanently closed. Since this blog has received several hundred reader comments since it appeared on Patheos last fall, I feel like an explanation is in order.
Soon after my blog appeared on Patheos I realized that commenting threads, particularly ones that allowed for anonymous or pseudonymous posts, tend to become incredibly nasty and pointless. This realization was reinforced by hearing news that other larger and more reputable sites were recognizing this problem and responding with either tighter control over their sites or elimination of the commenting feature altogether. Many of these places seemed to be admitting that the problem of vitriolic commenting was unfixable as long as a forum existed conducive to it. I believe they’re right.
After having no choice to but to close certain threads and even ban some repeat offenders, I decided to implement a simple but explicit commenting policy, by which I could (I thought) hold posters more accountable. I continued to monitor threads and more quickly remove/ban anything incendiary. However, this presented a new problem: To moderate the threads fairly and effectively, I had to hover over them on a daily basis. That is something I am frankly unwilling to do. It is in no way incumbent upon a writer to give a voice to any and everyone that wants to spew an absurd, vitriolic, irrelevant, and illiterate response to his writing.
Furthermore, I am concerned that online commenting has embedded within its essential nature a mob mentality. Patheos is a remarkable site that hosts a stunningly diverse range of writers and ideas. It’s no secret, though, that Patheos has a very strong and active community of atheist bloggers and commenters. It’s also no secret that the views expressed in this blog and others in the Evangelical channel (such as Owen Strachan) are unpopular with internet culture at large. What that kind of lopsided ideological spectrum tends to do is empower the majority to shout down any dissenting voices. When I write on something hotly controversial such as homosexuality, religious liberalism, or abortion, I can safely bet that the commenting threads will oppose my views by at least 4 to 1. That doesn’t bother me in the least, but what does bother me is that the commenters seem to know this as well and use that advantage to not only disagree but to launch personal attacks, not just against me but also against any poor, intellectually depraved creature who might sympathize with my beliefs.
This creates a culture where those with unpopular views are afraid to join the discussion and face the wrath of the majority. I actually have some interesting anecdotal evidence for that. Not long after I published my thoughts on Hillsong Church’s Brian Houston’s ambivalent commentary on homosexuality, I closed the commenting thread, seeing that it was likely to only become a heated and pugilistic forum. Instead, I invited readers to email me with their thoughts. I received probably 6 or 7 emails from readers, and do you want to know how many of them disagreed with my take? One. That one disagreement, by the way, was expressed very civilly, and the reader and I enjoyed a profitable exchange.
Of all the comments I’ve received on this blog, at least 75% have disagreed with me, and a large chunk of those have done so viciously. Of all the emails I’ve received, 90% have agreed with me. Interpret that however you choose. I choose to believe it’s a reasonable indication that some readers do not feel welcome in these threads. That leaves me with two options: I can either devote large amounts of time to monitoring and moderating the blog, artificially creating a less hostile environment through deletion and banning–OR, I can invite readers to contact me through a medium that encourages more reflection and genuine thought. I choose the second option.
I welcome reader feedback. As a writer, it is crucial to my craft. But it’s clear to me now that an online commenting forum is simply too weaponized for the troll and the crank. Everyone has a fundamental human right to their thoughts, but there is no corresponding human right to a platform. Speech is free; audiences aren’t.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In