ineffably.net’s guide to commenting: civility in the interactive age
tom adam
For a while now, I’ve been uploading videos to YouTube. Mostly, there isn’t too much of a response- I don’t really try to drum up views. Most of the comments I do get are positive in nature and who doesn’t like getting those, but the negative comments are always unpleasant to get and kind of put a bit of a downer on the day.
This isn’t just a YouTube thing, any kind of social interaction is going to have some people who like it (or are being nice) and some people who dislike (or are being anti-nice). From Usenet on to forums to YouTube and blogging, we have established a culture of interactivity.
I would never say this is anything but fantastic. Not only do we, as individuals, have a global reach for the genesis of culture, the nature of conversation has expanded beyond all limits of place and time. I love this.
But you do get those times where people are going to disagree and say less than nice things, and I think we need a better framework for how to have these conversations so far beyond any prior conception. And here are some of my thoughts on that.
To note: this isn’t a guide to rhetoric and argumentation. The only fallacy I’m going to mention is the ad hominem bit. All I have to say about that is that rational argumentation is the framework that ideas are challenged and if that is your goal, become familiar with those rules. Otherwise, it’s like trying to play a sport when you don’t know that American Football is totally different from the remainder of the civilized world.
For my purposes, I think there are three basic types of comments:
1. The “attaboy“: basically little nuggets of feel-good or acknowledgment. Not intended to really convey information.
2. Constructive comment: constructive criticism- offering suggestions for improvement.
3. Argumentation: Taking issue with ideas or expression raised.
As I said, argumentation is beyond the scope of this guide, but the rules of rhetoric and logic have been around for some time and I’m sure appropriate resources could be found dealing with those technical issues.
The first one I want to talk about is “Constructive Criticism.” The basic goal of constructive criticism is that it identifies something unsatisfactory (which happens a lot online) and also offers concrete and reasonable suggestions for improvement (which does not happen a lot). This is a touchy subject for a lot of people. Criticism is never easy to take- especially when the thing being criticized is usually something the individual is passionate about or interested in enough to go out of their way to voluntarily create or post it online.
Just consider, for a moment, that huge portion of the internet is created by individuals for no reason other than they want to. There is no monetary benefit. So the criticism is not usually going to a vague interest- it’s going to something the poster feels strongly about.
This is not to say that constructive criticism is inappropriate. Sometimes it is unwelcome, and if that is the case, a commenter should be wary about sallying forth with unwanted opinions. Even when it is acceptable, there can be hurt feelings. Having a good framework for leaving a constructive comment can ease that and allow some of the emotion to be set aside when reading the comment.
The most important thing is to be as specific as possible when suggesting a flaw. Rather than saying (as an example) “I didn’t like Han Solo’s character,” it may be better to say “I find Han Solo an unlikable character due to his unrelenting greed and selfishness and his eventual ‘redemption’ doesn’t flow from his character but seems like an example of deus ex machina when he shoots down Vader’s TIE-fighter.” Then, George Lucas at least can tell what aspect of Han Solo is not satisfactory to you. Obviously, each medium and media is going to have its own relevant factors, but the principle holds: be as specific as possible.
It is also important (though less-so) to offer realistic suggestions for improvement. Again, they should be specific. Continuing with the Star Wars example: “I’d believe in Han Solo’s heroism more if he exhibited more of a struggle between his selfishness and heroism earlier in the film. You may want to think about him helping Luke when rescuing Leia on the Death Star, even if it is with the hope of a reward, rather than hiding in the Millennium Falcon. This way you can see that he is pulled by both desires.” Or something.
This technique for critique is pretty basic, but good. Rather than being solely a disapproval, it is an exploration of improvement, which can be a subtle but important distinction in the emotional response of the commentee when reading it (or hearing it as the case may be).
Other than that, we have the “attaboy” comments. These are not comments that are meant to convey real information or offer suggestions, but just to express appreciation or support. From the positive perspective this might be something like “I like it” or “great job” or that sort of thing. These are probably okay to leave whenever (unless it would be inappropriate for some other reason). I mean, even if it isn’t constructive, it’s still nice to hear (or read).
On the negative side, the attaboy comment is replaced by the heckle. The heckle, at its best, would be something like “I didn’t like this very much.” At its worst it devolves into ad hominem comments: “u suck,” “ur geigh,” and other associated (often illiterate) types of comments. (Also, for a great exploration of why “you’re gay” is not an insulting comment, see this vlog by John Green)
I’d say that, unless specifically and intentionally requested, these comments are never appropriate. If something needs to be said that is not positive, it should be included as a constructive comment. And, especially online, where the whole picture is never understood, there should never, ever, ever, ever, ever be a comment about the person, rather than the idea or expression. It adds nothing to the world to tell someone “you suck.” Nothing. Keep your freaking negativity to yourself.
Sometimes, though, comments that are intended to be constructive don’t do so well and end up more in the heckle category. It’s best to just accept the comment as one person’s view and move on. If it is clearly meant to be a constructive comment and communication is possible, asking for clarification might be alright.
Remember, when you leave a comment, you are addressing a person on the other end who is probably pretty invested in the thing, whatever it is, or it wouldn’t be there in the first place. Just like (for car buffs) you wouldn’t want sometime to call your fully restored classic camaro a p.o.s., give that same courtesy to others. Don’t use online anonymity as an excuse for rudeness.
And when you receive a comment… well, there’s an adage: never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity. I’d add ignorance, thoughtlessness, or carelessness ahead of stupidity, but most comments are going to be meant as helpful, even if they aren’t very good. So try to remember that it’s nothing personal, unless it is.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
