Southeast Missourian joins Google in test to elevate civility

I applaud the Missourian’s efforts to increase civility in the online community. If only all social media would attempt to further that goal.

Oh please Jon! You should have left things the way they were before you allowed a few shakers and makers to convince you to eliminate anonymous commentary. Before this was implemented, we had many here commenting on issues. Frankly speaking, I would be hesitant to put any faith in Google!..jmho

"Fewer people are commenting" ?? So , you're losing customers , is this a good thing ?

Like everything else , there are ways to be anynomous . Posters will be "civil" or not either way .

Marc, Google's technology helps flag terms and combinations of words. It's a tool to help us be more effective and quick in moderating. The decisions, for the most part, about what content to remove remains with the newspaper. The exception is at the "high toxicity" range, where we've set up our system NOT to post those comments until moderators have reviewed. Here, understanding false positives will be important. As for your comment about impact of going away from anonymity... I'll be writing about that more in the near future, along with results from a survey we conducted prior to launching with Google. Thanks for your input.

Dealing with a spy company like Google is like having the lion watch after the sheep.

Schaefer's World

In other words , posters can say what they want , it all depends on how they say it . This sounds like political correctness to me . I can understand no curse words or lewd pics , but it sounds like an attempt to control free speech to me . If free thought is controlled , there really is no freedom of expression or free speech ..

People are too sensitive in the year 2018 .

Rick, we really do want a place for robust discussion. We have been testing the system around replacing "Republican" for "Democrat", "Man" for "Woman", etc. In other words: easily identifiable friction points to make sure there is no hypocrisy within the system. Same scores for all. What triggers high "toxicity" most are curse words, etc., as you've acknowledged being good to prevent, and name calling. And it's name-calling that often breaks down communication. We really do want your feedback. Keep commenting as you interact with the new system... or send to commenting@semissourian.com. Thanks for your comments!

Test: A Republican man married a Democratic woman. Or do we say: A peson with a certain plumbing of the party of Lincoln married a person of another type of plumbing of the party of Kennedy. By that time I would have forgotten what I was going to write about.

Schaefer's World

Jon, I must have missed that survey. When this forum was implemented over a decade ago it was anonymous and a place of very lively discussion as well as debate. Several folks posted on a daily basis most of whom are no longer here. It was very popular and, many folks who never posted enjoyed it as well. I know this, as I have talked to several who enjoyed all the comments and discussions. Frankly speaking, I believe it helped sell your newspaper especially the online additions. I also believe the council members read it and were able to get a pulse of what the citizens concerns were. I respect your opinions as well as your timely responses Jon. I for one will be waiting to read more about your upcoming news concerning anonymity and the survey results.

While I find this to be a relevant subject given the political climate in the past several years, is the amount of your "grant" from Google going to become public knowledge? & would that amount sway the public's opinion as to motive for participating in this "transparent" experiment? & do you think that information would decrease the public's willingness to become part of this program?

Test: A Republican man married a Democratic woman. Or do we say: A peson with a certain plumbing of the party of Lincoln married a person of another type of plumbing of the party of Kennedy. By that time I would have forgotten what I was going to write about.

Schaefer's World

Jon, I agree with other posters here. It's obvious that since the anonymity was removed it has killed free and open opinion on this site.

I think there's a misunderstanding about the importance of anonymity. To me it's not to make it easier to be vulgar or hateful. There are many people whose livelihoods would be threatened for the slightest comment against a political party or government (state/local). It's a fact.

If I work at SEMO and know of poor management, etc. I could never speak of it here or make the world aware of it without the threat of retaliation. Maybe I have a restaurant in Cape and tend to support more liberal democrat party ideas. Nope - can't post here if it's not anonymous. I could link to 100+ articles of business owners and employees who posted comments that simply aren't accepted as "politically correct" and been fired or harassed by mobs or had their personal property vandalized. If you think "echo chambers" are a problem on a forum you obviously have never worked at a University... or in city government.

You don't have to do both together. I think monitoring comments for vulgarity and physical threats is excellent. Ironic one poster agrees and has probably the most vulgar posts I've seen. But you could also return anonymity with your civility approach. A hybrid - more review of comments to remove vulgar speech / name calling and returning to anonymity.

I guarantee you the much higher public discourse and posting on here would return. And discourse isn't a dirty word...

If you can't run with the dogs stay at home on the porch with the pups .

Jon,

I have a thought or so about the following comment....

"It also underscores the trend for people to huddle within groups of the like-minded, creating echo chambers, which turn differences of opinion into tribal warfare. Newspaper commentary zones are an anti-thesis to the echo chambers, because they exist for the broader community and not just for specialized interests (or self-selected "friends")."

Is this not a natural or normal action? When I first posted on this paper, I knew perhaps one other person. I now know a number of posters personally and consider them friends. At least one that I know and consider a friend certainly has some different opinions on politics compared to my own. We can get by that. On the other hand there are others that by their nature I have no interest in becoming friends with. I have never done well with an it's my way or the highway attitude. There are positions that I am open to negotiate on and there are positions that I will not negotiate, respect for life and abortion would be one of those.

This is simply another effort to ratchet up the Thought Police. If the new automation indicates your comments are not consistent with the arbitrary boundary set by someone in control of this (or other) media outlet, they will automatically be excised from publication. It is just another way to remove unapproved political thought from public view. Back in the old days, this was done manually for PRAVDA, so I guess the real news here is that now they can use technology to destroy first amendment freedoms. Welcome to the Brave New World.

John Bennet: Big Brother 1984 is upon us.

Schaefer's World

John Bennet

As you say , "Thought Police" and "destroy first amendment freedoms" .

Well said ...

Ha, Ha, well I'm late to this one, as usual. Maybe you can "teach" them to be civil, but I doubt it. You're working against CNN and Fox, and a whole uncivil culture created by Limbaugh, rabid dems and others. Ultimately civility has to come from the individual and not somehow enforced by robot. So, I don't know. I'm more than a little skeptical, but if it will make you feel better about the paper, I guess have at it. I doubt it will really solve the problem. There's just too much inertia toward incivility.

Guess if you want to comment on any thread or on these opinion columns then you have to be mindful that the Google god will allow or disallow your comment even though no 4 letter words were used. Will the Google god be used also on the tv networks programs to make them more civil. Will the Google god be used also on the movies made by Hollywood to make them more civil. Will the Google god be used also on the video games played by those who are inclined to in order to make them more civil. The suppression of Free Speech or the attempt to by the Google god is the first step of a world of "Thought Police" and in a society similar to the movie "1984".

Schaefer's World

Semo471

Perhaps if everyone keeps a log of their posts we can do a little judging of Google as well to check on their bias in seeing who is allowed to post what.

Just a thought.

What I can gather from the comments of Jon Rust is this...

- they want to work to maintain civility on the site (completely unrelated to your politics or opinion left, right, center, democrat, republican, socialist marxist

- to help them monitor it they are teaming with Google and it's algorithms, etc. to simply point out comments that might be uncivil which became too large a task for them manually

- then the SE Missourian - and only the SE Missourian - will make a judgement on whether a poster on THEIR SITE is being uncivil (name calling, vulgar / profane language, physical threats to other posters, etc.)

We all know that Google, FaceBook, etc. are biased. But it sounds like the staff at the SE Missourian are going to make the final call on who / what gets blocked or banned - NOT Google. This is nothing new - many of us have had previous posts deleted or have been banned by the staff of the SE Missourian.

The only thing "new" I see here is letting a computer algorithm use its logic to look for key words and phrases to select POSSIBLE posts to delete. No different than the little icon in the corner of a posting that says "Report comment to editor".

===

Now, Jon, can we get anonymity back? Could Silence Dogood (aka Ben Franklin) have been so wrong? He wasn't uncivil - just didn't want to be "outed" for his opinions on his brothers newspaper.

Interesting that my point on anonymity is reinforced by an article on the SE Missourian today!

A professor at SEMO named Stilson would like to propose a name change to the University to make it not seem so small and regional ("south east Missouri") and help it attract more students.

He started a petition and this is the reaction he received for this simple, non-binding survey about the name change - from the article:

"The one thing concerning Stilson, he said, was the almost violent reaction by some people who oppose the idea."

https://www.semissourian.com/story/2566987.html#Comments

===

Anonymity is an America tradition to increase free speech and thought. "outing" people for their thoughts and ideas is a stalwart of communist China, Russia, etc. Dude goes out to start a harmless petition and gets an almost violent reaction.

Ridiculous.

"From twisting the arms of social media companies to censor and erase “hate speech” to raiding the homes of social media posters accused of posting “hate speech,” the German government is ironically sabotaging its own democratic ideals as a way to safeguard against fascist impulses."

Let us not become another Germany.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/17801/thought-crime-german-police-raid-homes-peop...

Schaefer's World

As long as they are not vulgar or intentionally hurtful, any comments that you are willing to sign your name to should be published. The First Amendment gives the inalienable right to be as stupid in public as we want to. It is the American Way.

Doug Williams:

Truth is not ascertained simply because a "well known" Professor says "almost violent reactions" occurred, and a reporter from this paper quotes him (with no fact checking or presentation of opposing viewpoint). The professor is entitled to his opinions, and would do well to support them with factual evidence presented directly to the University through appropriate channels rather than a preemptive personal media play. "Dude goes out to start a harmless petition and gets an almost violent reaction". Comment goes to show reader perception that because the paper quotes, the truth is known. Making news versus reporting it. If this paper was really interested in civil discourse (anonymous or not) Professor's OPINIONS should have been presented in that same section.

Mark Reder:

Establishing the professors statements as "opinion", lacking in "factual evidence", failing to support them "directly to the University through appropriate channels" or as a "preemptive media play" is 100% opinion with zero evidence. Those Comments go to show reader perception and bias with purely speculative (aka zero evidence) to discredit the professors statement. The professor was there, you were not.

I gave an example based on a fact - the statement of the professor is a fact and you can read that statement in black and white. Whether that is truth or not only he knows firsthand. At least I quoted a source - you gave none but your opinion.

I don't agree with everything I read and neither do you. At least I backed my statements up with the quote in the article. You couldn't even do that. Maybe he did report it, maybe it isn't opinion and maybe he has factual evidence. At least I have his statement - what did you bring to the table to prove your opinion and characterization of him above? Not a single thing.

I read a posting a couple of years ago from a Mark Reder that said this:

"What is your best 5K time after turning 50?

23.02. Was so cold out had to run super fast to stay thawed out."

How do we know you did this in 23.02? How do we know you're over 50? Why should we believe you in that entire article?

I used the professors example as a simple one in this very paper to make a point. Forget him if you will. Do you need evidence of violence, threats or harm to people who disagree with others? Seriously? I don't. I've seen it in the news with pictures, etc. That was my point for anonymity. Need 100 examples? I can easily provide them - but I'm sure you've already read many yourself and would agree. People are assaulted, targeted, had windows busted out, spray painting on buildings, etc. for nothing more than a simple opinion in this hyper-political, uncivil environment. Anonymity is an AMERICAN tradition - not so much in China and Russia.

Where is the guarantee the "real name" now being required is not anonymous in of itself . People can be who they want to be on the world wide net , anonymous is the name of the game . A name is only a label , no ?