Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. A simple saying to remind children that words can’t hurt. But what happens when the children grow into adults and words can do more than hurt? In the real world words can shape perceptions and alter realities. Words become devices used to shape policies and organizations. Words have the potential to do more than hurt, words can destroy and reconstruct things anew.

The spike of these sort of words has caused online news media outlets to silence comment sections. In 2014 a move was made by news outlets to close or sometimes screen the comment sections of their articles. Some began by taking making the decision to delete comments or block users from engaging with content after a negative or misguided impression was left. Others completely omitted the comment section to silence users completely. Axing comment sections was designed to put an end to Internet ‘trolls’ and heated debates which only loosely related to the original posted content.

Now these conversations have moved to Facebook and Twitter, the current hotspots for political debates. User comments on these platforms are not limited or blocked. A platform for debate and discussion exists but it’s no longer tied to specific news outlets or their audiences. Instead of having journalists engage with those who consume their work, their employers have silenced their readers outlets.

This method doesn’t just screen out trolls, but also those who disagree with articles. On social media, conversations are then limited to the bubbles which users exist in. The phenomenon of shared reality is heightened when conversations move to social media platforms. Though social media are natural places for conversations to flow from, opinions on either extreme can be lost or oversaturated among others. Geography, language and who you are connected to all shape the conversation. By spreading conversations to other networks, those who engage with content are responsible for finding those who want to participate. Closed comment sections get rid of the trolls, but they get rid of the engaged users too.

While news outlets claim social media platforms allow users to expand their reach, they are limiting the scope of the conversation. Social media users tend to be younger and more privileged. News outlets are limiting their audiences and limiting the diversity of opinion they receive.

Furthermore, a 2016 quantitative study (Conlin and Roberts. 2016) indicates that the removal of comment sections has decreased user trust in the credibility and content quality control. The proliferation of fake news across social media has elevated this sense of distrust. If users are unable to engage with their media, they feel they are less influential. The inability to engage, ask questions, and reiterate information makes users stand-offish and less likely to participate. In the age of fake news, those with high digital literacy tend to examine the media they consume. Without the benefit of comment sections, some users feel limited in their opportunity to engage with news outlets.

By doing away with comment sections, the opportunity for news outlets to engage with their viewers is limited. But what do media outlets get from their audiences? Being bombarded with Internet trolls and arguments is what led to the change in the first place. If conversations are pushed to social media, what are they gaining? Is it out of sight, out of mind for news outlets? Or is the possibility of better knowing commenters what is driving the change?

In an age where a digital footprint speaks volumes, is putting a face to a comment giving words more weight? Is it possible that the weight of a criticism is judged by the critic? Social media offers a wealth of information that gives context to comments beyond the comment itself. While the Internet troll rationale seems likely, what is even more likely is that news outlets are better able to track and understand their audience when there is more of a profile to a user. Why try to create their own network, when millions of users exist on already established networks? It may be true that news outlets are looking for more than opinions from their users.

There are implications to removing comment sections. It does not end negativity but transforms it. It changes the weight of a comment. It changes what the news site themselves may look like, what they are used for. It perpetuates the trend of politically charged discussions on social media. It can also limit credibility of news sources and keeps the power amongst those who already have it. Words and their location on the Internet matter, social media reshapes what dialogue looks like. In a world with no comment sections, users must claim their words with new pride, reshaping the conversation and ownership of commentary.

by Daniella J Galdamez

References

Doreen Marchionni (2015) Online Story Commenting, Journalism Practice, 9:2, 230-249, DOI:                                                                                                                                   10.1080/17512786.2014.938943

Konnikova, Maria. “The Psychology of Online Comments.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 19 June 2017, www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-psychology-of-online-comments.

Bode, Karl. “The Trend Of Killing News Comment Sections Because You ‘Just Really Value Conversation’ Stupidly Continues.” TechDirt, Sept. 2015, www.techdirt.com/articles/20150917/09222332282/trend-killing-news-comment-sections-because-you-just-really-value-conversation-stupidly-continues.shtml.

Conlin, Lindsey, and Chris Roberts. “Presence of online reader comments lowers news site credibility.” Newspaper Research Journal, vol. 37, no. 4, 2016, pp. 365–376., doi:10.1177/0739532916677056.

Kim, Youngju. “Exploring the Effects of Source Credibility and Others’ Comments on Online News Evaluation.” Electronic News, vol. 9, no. 3, July 2015, pp. 160–176., doi:10.1177/1931243115593318.

Sikorski, Christian Von, and Maria Hänelt. “Scandal 2.0 How Valenced Reader Comments Affect Recipients’ Perception of Scandalized Individuals and the Journalistic Quality of Online News .” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 93, no. 3, Nov. 2016, pp. 551–571., doi:10.1177/1077699016628822.

The post [Millennials’ Voices] Disappearing Comment Sections on News Websites: Cause for Concern? appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

The indictment last February of 13 Russians for interfering in the 2016 US Election prompted further reports discussing how ‘fake news’ is being weaponized to manipulate political processes by taking advantage of the lack of governance within social media. The CBC (Brown, 2018) published an article in March about a young journalist, Vitaly Bespalov, who came to be employed in what has been referred to as ‘the troll factory’ in St. Petersburg, officially known as the Internet Research Agency. This former political Internet troll reported that he left the organization after a few months upon the realization his job only entailed creating offensive content for the global online political sphere and more specifically to manipulate political affairs in Ukraine.

So, what is an Internet troll? An Internet troll is someone who browses the web seeking opportunities to question, mock, or attack others on social media and online forums. In general, trolls are assumed to simply be bored users hoping to cause friction in online discussions. However, a political Internet troll has become something of a profession, their role being the creation of fake news that will reinforce ideological action in the real world political sphere via social media, weaponizing this content for political ends (Brewster, 2018). With this comes greater responsibility as media literacy becomes increasingly important to aid in distinguishing between genuine news reporting and clickbait fake news.

Fake news enables manipulation of the democratic process by integrating itself within social media and Web 2.0’s clickbait culture. With social media’s integrated structures for dissemination as well as their algorithmic enclaves, political trolls acting for larger stakeholders can coerce the public. While partisan messages in media do not necessarily cause political polarization, one sided messages can amplify it (Prior, 2013, 101). Also problematical is how the segmentation of people into filter bubbles and echo chambers allows fake news to be targeted at audiences who match the tone of the content being released.

These platforms are not easily governed, therefore cyber defenses cannot correct these issues according to John Turnbull, a former Canadian electronic warfare specialist (Brewster, 2018). Therefore, the responsibility falls to the social media platforms to monitor content that threatens the political sphere through fake news. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has noted he considers Facebook and CEO Mark Zuckerberg as being responsible for managing the fake news or possibly being subjected to federal regulations. This may set a precedence for other social media platforms to pre-emptively consider implementing regulation tools for filtering out fake news.

Clickbait fake news exploiting algorithmic enclaves on social media is effectively distorting the virtual public sphere’s perception of politics. Media illiterate users who do not pursue further knowledge than what is exposed to them enable fake news to be a genuinely efficient means of manipulating political discourse. Lack of thorough research by users and lack of governance by operating systems will enable the weaponization of news and its interference in global affairs and foreign politics.

Justin Trudeau proposing possible regulations sets expectations for Facebook to implement filtration systems for fake news. This can then act as a precedent to progressively discuss international organizations making amendments to global regulation to minimize flaws in social media’s defense against weaponized information pre-emptively. More so, with broader global awareness of the threat to the political process, global governance to limit exposure to fake news could become a common, but perhaps difficult goal.

This is especially true when considering state involvement in the creation of fake news relating to foreign politics. In this instance Russia’s Internet Research Agency acting as a medium to force weaponized news into the filter bubbles of pertinent social media users who would best respond to the extreme, one-sided information they are already mainly exposed to.

The segmentation of the digital public into filter bubbles and echo chambers generates a culture that thrives on selective exposure and thereby can be easily manipulated. Users operate within a narrow window of information that is made enticing to stimulate clickbait engagement. With the application of clickbait to fake news, digital forums are at risk of no longer being just a traditional public sphere, but rather a means of using coercive behaviour to take advantage of minimally governed, sometimes anonymous platforms to manipulate news to benefit a group’s political agenda.

by Courtney Trim

Works cited:

Brewster, M. (2018, March 4). Is Canada’s democracy ready for a dire new age of weaponized news? Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/political-warfare-russia-hacks-1.4560505

Brown, C. (2018, March 7). Putin was ‘good’ and Obama was ‘bad’: Former Russian trolls reveal online work to create ‘fake news’. Retrieved from

Prior, M. (2013). Media and Political Polarization. Solutions to Political Polarization in America,16(1), 101-117. doi:10.1017/cbo9781316091906.013

The post [Millennials’ Voices] Attacking the Political Sphere with Fake News appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

I am concerned with the alarming rate with which social media is changing conventional news and journalism. Today, there is widespread application of digital technology that allows for the creation and dissemination of information across the Internet. Currently, highly accessible publishing techniques on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube among many others, have increased the conversations and interactions between people online.

The use of social media is now widespread, as it has moved beyond geographical and cultural boundaries. Social media, therefore, has greatly influenced news and journalism by changing the way journalists engage with their audiences, and by extension, how people interact with each other the world over.

I am concerned about the great potential of social media to destroy our social fabric while promoting moral decadence faster than the world has ever experienced before. Regardless of its perceived convenience, it is a double-edged sword. What is said and how it is said online has an impact on one’s online presence, marketability, career, or even one’s business.

Additionally, fraudsters have found social media platforms to be excellent places to find victims. Many people have physically or psychologically suffered, while others have incurred huge economic losses at the hands of those met online. Viewed from traditional journalistic lens’ and values, it is evident that our society needs to take precautions while using social media as a news source.

Mainstream, legacy media have also not been spared from this social media craze. In the face of the rapid growth of social networks as a source of news, print media, for example, have experienced a continued decline in circulation. These news outlets have therefore been forced to turn to social networks with the hope of attracting more readers.

For instance, today, almost every mainstream media organization, whether newspaper, TV or radio, together with their editors and reporters, have a social media presence. The public is increasingly seeking its news not from legacy media, but online, where they select the news and opinions they care about the most. Editors no longer have the ability to filter the news as the target audiences now decide what to read and where to find it. The biggest challenge with this, however, is how to maintain the quality and credibility of the news they consume.

Social media enables connection over common beliefs, desires or interests among individuals all over the world. Ultimately, the world has been reduced to a global village, where people can succeed or fail together. Social media has not only affected how people connect with each other for a good cause but has also provided a ground for criminal activity. Terrorism, for instance, thrives on social media platforms in the ways terrorists now use them to engage with each other.

The opinion, perceptions, and actions traditionally shaped by information from mainstream media are now shaped by social media, and mainstream media are alarmingly being overwhelmed by the pressure of social media. Consequently, these mainstream news outlets are increasingly using social media platforms as a new tool for both news dissemination and marketing. However, the general public should be aware of the fact that if the social media platforms are not used responsibly, they will cause irreparable damage to our societies. Perhaps, our future as a society lies in legislation, which can govern social media by putting checks and balances that will guarantee the sustainability of our societies.

by Nianqiao Tang

The post [Millennials’ Voices] News and Journalism in the Age of Social Media appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.