Announcing Mumbrella’s new comment moderation policy
Mumbrella content director Tim Burrowes explains why we’re raising the threshold for published comments on Mumbrella - but will not be banning anonymous contributors
In the coming days, you may notice that the number of published comments on Mumbrella drops.
Previously, we’ve worked on the basis that unless there’s a reason not to publish a comment, it deserves to see the light of day.
Under our new moderation policy, we’ll only be publishing comments that we believe are worth our audience seeing.
I’ll explain what that means in practice later in this piece.
It’s the latest change in what has been more than a decade of evolution of our policy.
After Mumbrella launched in late 2008, for the first two years we allowed comments to be published instantly. I moderated away those that were offensive or libellous after they had been published.
It worked while we were new, and had what felt like a small, defined community.
But then in late 2010, after publishing our first 45,000 or so comments, there was an incident that forced a rethink.
By then our audience had grown, and we were overtaking longer established competitors.
I wrote a news article about the appointment of a CMO at a big brand.
Overnight, somebody posted a hostile comment, purporting to be one of this CMO’s new colleagues. I soon heard from the person in question that it wasn’t from him; it was trolling.
When I checked the IP address of the commenter, I discovered it appeared to have been posted by one of our rivals in the trade press, presumably trying to get us into trouble.
We decided that the libel risk for us was too big, and switched to pre-moderation. The way libel law works in Australia is that the publisher is potentially liable for every comment.
As I explained in that December 2010 announcement:
Life is never boring when you run a big site where comments are not pre-moderated.
However, I’m reaching the point where each morning is becoming a little too stressful as I log on to find out whether somebody posted a horribly libellous comment overnight.
I am, for now at least, opting for the quiet life – and switching to pre-moderation.
Of the 44,564 comments we’ve had over the last two years, the vast, vast majority have been absolutely fine. Unfortunately, it will be one of the tiny minority that gets us into trouble, and we’ve now grown to the size where even a minority of malicious comments is a meaningful number.
Recently, we’ve had a run of comments from people pretending to be somebody they’re not, or making untrue claims about another person or agency. In too many cases, this seems to have been motivated by people looking to hurt rivals, rather than having a basis in truth.
So unfair as it is on those who simply want to have an uninterrupted conversation, I’m closing the ability to post unscreened comments. The alternative is even more unfair to those who come under attack – and indeed leaves us exposed to legal risk too.
The first comment on the post summed it up: “Nasty little fuckers aren’t they?”
It was hard to disagree.
A year later, as we approached 70,000 published comments, I addressed the question of whether we should ban all anonymous comments.
It came after an ineffective attempt by The Communications Council to raise its concerns over comment moderation policies. The Comms Council had attempted to put together a round table of the trade press publishers. I agreed to participate.
But the pow-wow at breakfast place Bill’s in Sydney’s Surry Hills was postponed at the last moment, because one of our rivals – I don’t know which one – cancelled.
Then Comms Council CEO Daniel Leesong abruptly departed, and we never heard from them on the topic again.
But I’d still given thought to whether the disadvantages of anonymous comments were beginning to outweigh the benefits. As I wrote in November 2011:
In all honesty, I remain somewhat agnostic on the issue, although I do lean slightly in one direction. Had the meeting taken place, I would have argued that denying users anonymity because of the actions of a minority was probably not the answer.
However, I was, and remain, open to persuasion.
But over the years, I’ve felt increasingly less enamoured with our comment thread.
A year later, in October 2012 as we hit 100,000 comments, I asked our audience.
To be honest, I think I was asking for their blessing to turn off comments altogether. As I summed it up at the time:
At its best, when we get intelligent, reasoned debate and explanation from people who know far more about the topic than us. I believe that a big factor in Mumbrella’s success when we launched into a crowded trade press landscape nearly four years ago was the comment thread. It wasn’t a big part of the plan, but letting people easily comment became a big point of difference.
Even when we switched to pre-moderation a few months later because of legal risk, it remained powerful.
It’s at it worst when people get too angry, too abusive or too stupid. My heart sinks when we get mindless attacks on ads that probably come from rivals. Or mindless, and irrational, praise of average ads probably coming from the agency that created them. Fair to say that advertising work is what tends to bring out the worst behaviour in the comment thread.
But the sentiment from our audience was not to outlaw anonymous comments.
Which is one of the issues we face. When you’re in the room with the agency bosses, they tend to be the ones who oppose anonymous commenting as they’re often the ones whose organisations are being talked about. But as individuals, they each get one vote among a wider industry audience of perhaps 70,000 in Australia. And that wider audience is our first constituency.
So how to respect the bosses’ views without disrespecting our wider audience?
One step we took was to explicitly publish community comment guidelines, which we did in 2011, with some updates over the years since.
Essentially, the rule was that comments should discuss the issues, and not be personal attacks.
As we put it: “While we have no wish to create an insipid comment environment, we think there is merit in considering how our actions affect others.”
But of course, one of the issues is that people cannot see what we choose not to publish. And the defence of our comment thread – “you should see what we don’t publish” – just sounds weak.
But it’s certainly true that our journalists get to see the worst of our industry in the offensive comments and personal attacks that don’t get published, and the distressing anecdotes about management misconduct that are too legally risky to put up.
Over on Mumbrella Asia, moderated from our Singapore office, we were experiencing a similar issue to Australia around the tone of our comment thread.
Plus, each human moderator at Mumbrella Asia was applying our policies slightly differently. And sometimes not rigorously enough.
The Mumbrella Asia comment thread was lively, but at times verging on the nasty.
Without us really realising it was happening, over the previous couple of years, the comments had drifted away from our own moderation policy. We’d been letting through comments we just shouldn’t have. While many commenters were still constructive and insightful, others were using it as a means of attacking the work of rivals. And the more we allowed them to, the more they did it.
For a journalist moderator, removing comments or deleting some of a post, can feel like censorship, and we’d been allowing too much to go through.
It was bothering our GM Dean Carroll and I, because of the ambience it was giving to the site. And – just like in Australia – we were increasingly hearing from contacts that some were nervous about sending in new campaigns if their work was going to be thoughtlessly bashed.
With the previous editor having left the building, it was time for a rethink about comments, but Dean and I disagreed about the strategy we should take.
It was time for a big change for Mumbrella Asia, I argued. It was time to give up on full anonymity. It would be an experiment that might deliver lessons for the bigger Mumbrella Australia site.
We should oblige anybody who wanted to post a comment with us to link it to an email address. We wouldn’t insist they publish their real name, but at least we’d be able to say that we’d asked who they were.
Dean was of a different view. He was concerned that, first, such an approach is misleading – burner email addresses are easy to create, so we wouldn’t really know who the commenter was, we’d just be able to pretend we did. And second, it would create friction for ordinary readers who just wanted to talk about that day’s topic. Was it unfair to make it harder for them?
Dean proposed an alternative approach. Get back to the basics of good, and much stricter, comment moderation according to our own policies – talk about the issue, not the individual; kick the ball, not the player.
And do it much more obviously.
So rather than simply choosing not to publish an offending comment, we would redact the offending part of the comment using the phrase “[Edited under Mumbrella’s community guidelines]”.
One point of this would be to make the steps we were taking more visible, rather than simply opting not to publish the comment. It would show we were actively moderating.
I wasn’t convinced it would be enough, but was willing to give it a try before we went for the nuclear option.
Indeed, I was so doubtful, that I insisted we brief our web development team on the changes I wanted to make so we could act immediately if the experiment failed. In readiness for that failure, Dean wrote a draft of a detailed post explaining why we’d felt forced to take the step. It was headlined “Time’s up for trolls”.
We never published it.
To my surprise (and relief) Dean’s plan worked. As we began to enforce our own guidelines more rigorously and visibly, our readers began to notice. The trolls moved away, and the quality of the comments began to improve.
Indeed, the phrase “[Edited under Mumbrella’s community guidelines]” became such a running joke that it was referenced in an ad for a local brewery.
The copy for the ad, designed to look like it was on Mumbrella, read “For when your client sets a 6pm meeting and you want to tell them [Edited under Mumbrella’s community guidelines]”.
Ironically, by the time we closed Mumbrella Asia last month, I was starting to feel like we’d cracked the comment issue.
Which brings us to the debate in Australia.
You may recall that last June, John Steedman, then acting CEO of WPP in Australia, stepped into the debate with an open letter which we, along with other trade titles, published.
While the intent may have been positive, it was not in my view particularly well thought out. It equated all anonymous comments with trolling. And described anonymous commentary as “the coward punches of public debate”.
Many sincere people have good reason why they cannot share who they are if they are to comment freely. Particularly those who are not in privileged management positions. That doesn’t make them trolls.
Steedman did not appear to accept that it is relatively easy for the powerful to speak their minds, but not their subordinates.
And those who need to blow the whistle on the industry’s many issues would lose an avenue for doing so. Thanks to the defamation laws, the industry’s #MeToo problem is already too far underground, to focus on just one problem.
The comments that followed tended to back that up, as Steedman’s staff and trading partners rushed to publicly back the man who controls a couple of billion dollars of ad spend.
But of course, nobody who might see their career affected negatively dared put their name to express a contradictory view, although plenty of anonymous commenters did.
Those with privilege often fail to recognise that they hold it.
Another issue with Steedman’s piece was that he was arguing for a solution that does not exist: “If somebody has something relevant to say about any issue, they should be required to log in. It’s a very simple but effective litmus test that means people are only able to post comments they’re prepared to see their name against. This would instantly put a stop to the worst of this behaviour and make all of us accountable for our opinions.”
Which would be great if it worked. But in reality it’s impossible for any publisher to tell the difference between a log-in created by somebody in their own name, and an anonymous troll. Throwaway verification email accounts take two minutes.
The policy represents that followed by fellow trade title AdNews, for instance. But when I tested it, it took me just a couple of minutes to create a fake email account and post my comment.
I’m not Spartacus, but I am C Ridron.
But there indeed is a problem with the quality of debate, particularly about creative work. It goes back long before Mumbrella even existed. Within this industry, Campaign Brief’s comment thread set a tone which does not exist as strongly in any other English language market I’ve come across.
Agencies rush to astroturf their own work, particularly when it’s not very good.
And it’s hard to tell the difference between a sincere comment on why an ad doesn’t work and a vicious attack from a rival.
So there absolutely is a problem.
But what also began to occur to me was that everybody we ask suggests a different potential solution. However, many of them don’t work in practice or require technology that doesn’t necessarily exist.
It was underlined when we held a round table on the topic at last month’s Mumbrella Media Retreat in Tasmania.
The retreat was conducted under The Chatham House Rule – so I can say what was discussed, but not who said it.
Several publishing executives in the room made helpful contributions about how they address comment moderation. But they were all different ideas.
But when we came back to report to the wider group on the round table’s constructive discussions, all hell broke loose.
It was awful, and perhaps the wider industry in microcosm. Various senior media executives began to shout over each other, and at our staff. It devolved into one or two of the most experienced people in the industry shouting at one of the youngest people in the room. It verged on bullying which was ironic, given what we were discussing.
These, of course, are the people who set the cultural tone of the industry where negative comments are rampant.
Which brings me to today’s policy shift.
After the retreat I stayed in Tasmania for an extended (wonderful, thanks for asking) Christmas break.
I spent some of that break reflecting on that round table. At a quarter of a million published comments and counting, it was a good moment to do so.
I kept coming back to a simple but helpful point made by one of the publishing execs at that round table. We were over-thinking it. The answer lies not in anonymous or otherwise commentary. It lies in how we moderate it.
As journalists, every time we choose not to publish a comment, it feels a little like an act of censorship. So we default towards publication, unless it breaks one of our community guidelines. As a result, we end up publishing a lot of stuff that doesn’t actually add to the conversation and may make it worse.
Why shouldn’t it be more like our policy on guest posts – for reasons of quality control, we decline far more than we publish.
Which feels like the new threshold: does a comment actually add to the conversation in some way?
That means that low-effort posts won’t make it. Poorly spelled contributions would be a sign that not much time and trouble has been taken with the thought.
Essentially, it means a shift from the question being: ‘Is there a reason not to publish this comment?’ to ‘Do we want to publish this comment?’
And that does not mean that only relentlessly positive comments of the type often seen on LinkedIn posts, for instance, will be allowed.
To be clear: while some would disagree, I do not see the role of the trade press to be a mindless cheerleader for the industry or, worse, an apologist for its flaws. The way the trade press (in any vertical) should work is to do its best to reflect the realities of the audience it serves. That means celebrating the best, and agitating for change for the better.
The industry’s recruitment problems are best served by making it a better place to work, not by avoiding talking about it.
However, those who criticise or raise difficult issues will need to take the time and trouble to make an intelligent, well thought out point.
And anonymity will still be a factor in our judgement on what to publish. Those who put their own name to it will be more likely to get their comment posted. Those who choose to comment regularly under the same pseudonym will also be a little more likely to see their comment published.
But – sadly – our more random contributions will come to an end. It means that one of the more surreal features of the Mumbrella comment thread – the 307 people who told us what names they wanted on their Coca-Cola bottle – will no longer be as welcome. The same will go for random comments from TV viewers who arrived after Googling a particular show, or polarised political warriors conjured up by mentions of 2GB or Collective Shout.
In the coming days we’ll be updating our community guidelines to reflect the change, but the new policy starts from today.
This afternoon, there’s another industry round table. This time it’s been called by John Steedman.
When we met for coffee after his open letter, I suggested it might be worth trying again to bring together all the trade press publishers – including Campaign Brief, which still appears to have an often-poisonous “anything goes” policy that has always been at the more extreme end of the spectrum to Mumbrella’s. When somebody complains about a comment they think they saw on Mumbrella, it often turns out to have been on Campaign Brief.
Since then, the trade press round table idea has mutated somewhat, with more agency bosses on Steedman’s invitation list than there are trade press.
From Mumbrella, I’ll be attending, and so will our editor Vivienne Kelly. My job as content director is to set policy; Viv’s job as editor is to apply it. So I own our decisions on this policy, even though she was the one who got shouted at last time round.
Viv returned from her holiday today, so today was my first opportunity to tell her our decision, which is why we’re revealing this new policy only shortly before today’s round table.
But, it feels disingenuous to go into that meeting without sharing our new direction, now the decision has been made.
It’s not what those who want a ban on all anonymous commentators will want to hear. But it feels like the one that is most respectful of Mumbrella’s audience.
Ironically, I won’t be able to tell you in any detail how the round table goes. Although I argued otherwise, they have stipulated it should be off the record so that everybody can comment openly. Which seems like quite a good principal to me.
I look forward to reading your (thoughtful) comments below…
“As journalists, every time we choose not to publish a comment, it feels a little like an act of censorship. So we default towards publication, unless it breaks one of our community guidelines. As a result, we end up publishing a lot of stuff that doesn’t actually add to the conversation and may make it worse.”
I think treading this line is going to be the hardest part; both for the author/moderating team as well as readers who like to see the interchange of comments that might show different sides to a story.
However I believe the benefit outweighs the risk assuming the team continues to stand for neutral comment acceptance – where a comment adds to the discourse and thought process rather than just a bash down of facts based on anecdotal stories.
Good luck team 🙂
User ID not verified.
I appreciate that Mumbrella are still prioritising anonymity for all the right reasons and the need for slightly more regulation.
Hopefully this doesnt become like AdNews though, where only the sycophantic, sickly sweet, ‘LinkedIn-esque’ comments are published.
There is certainly a need for negative emotion and dare I say it – vitriol – should the subject warrant it. The industry cant let broader issues such as climate deniers, racist presenters, etc simply go unchecked… can we?
You are our public mouthpiece and we trust your judgement when choosing what to publish moving forward.
User ID not verified.
We feel you Tim and applaud your stance. We currently rely on manual moderation but will look to your example as a litmus test for future action on our site.
User ID not verified.
Thanks for explaining the evolution of your policies here Tim. I think you’ve landed on a positive and workable position. Looking forward to hearing some thoughtful debate from industry leaders and other publishers on this later today…
User ID not verified.
100% the right direction, and thoughtful rationale to support it.
The only watch-out would be towards comment that do spark conflict but in a respectful way. Discourse still remains a very useful aspect of communication, but moderating what ‘respectful’ means is fraught with some complexity.
Good luck, and good call.
User ID not verified.
This comment doesn’t add to anything, I’ll admit, but having seen the slow creep of [Edited under Mumbrella moderation guidelines] and as an occasional commenter from outside the industry (and Australia), I truly hope this works for you. Despite the belief that BTL comments are toxic, most of the time I do pick up things here that I wouldn’t otherwise; it’d be a shame if that went. And I don’t have to go through angry or unrelated comments to get there!
User ID not verified.
Always love the detail you go into when writing about a decision you’ve made. It makes for the most fascinating reads.
Perhaps you could install micro-interactions on the articles and comments to allow people to vote up or down? This could help by giving people the opportunity to call bullshit on an article without writing a comment as well as allow the community to be involved in what comments are valuable and add to the conversation.
User ID not verified.
A pity I think. What was a forum for the industry, as well as an opportunity to vent, will inevitably become conservative, possibility self serving, . Issues which have had the opportunity to grow may be stifled, and the folks who can’t deal with anonymity become victors. I’m sure it’s not the case but it seems the sort of thing Scotty from marketing would demand.
User ID not verified.
Free speech means the right to offend whomever the hell you want whenever the hell you want to. Sadly, Australia’s Constitution gives you no such freedom. Why should Mumbrella? If you want free speech become a US citizen. Many Australians don’t believe in free speech – except, of course, opinions that accord with their own. Yet free speech is meaningless unless it includes the freedom to offend. No ifs or buts. You either support free speech or you don’t. You either support unfettered freedom of speech (including freedom to express hate). Or you don’t support free speech. Why should laws hold you accountable for hurting someone’s feelings? Of course, Australia’s rich and powerful can speak their minds. The rest of us? Shut up.
User ID not verified.
This is a good move and I wish more publishers would adopt it. Yes, it creates a “gatekeeper” and leaves you open to accusations of censorship or bias, but you see on the major publishers every day comments that make false claims, spread fake news or are otherwise utterly worthless. Whether you agree or not, publishing a comment that says nothing more than “Scomo is a terrible prime minister”, which I see every day on political stories, is simply pointless. It’s a stark contrast to to the Letters to the Editor, which are often edited and fact-checked with the author. Comments get just as much prominence these days, so should have the same amount of care applied to them.
User ID not verified.
Tim, thank you for that. As one who always uses an anonymous persona, maybe this is an example of the pot calling the kettle black, but I have noticed that, when there are contentious issues in evidence it has become obvious that there are people googling the subject, finding a reference on Mumbrella and having their say – even when they have nothing to do with the advertising or media industries. While it is impossible too completely eradicate this kind of trolling, if your new policy can reduce the extent of this problem it will go a long way toward making the comments more palatable than they have become. Far better indeed than what is now happening across Facebook where the people who call themselves journalists at major news sites are simply blocking anyone who disagrees with their particular world view resulting in a very one-sided (and boring) representation of what people are thinking.
User ID not verified.
I agree with Megan a positive step forward and a good backstory to explain the approach Tim. Well done.
Sparrow
User ID not verified.
Very good measured move Mumbrella. As an agency owner we have shunned the trade press and in particular Mumbrella because we felt like you were not controlling the trolls enough. We look forward to engaging with you more often.
User ID not verified.
I’ve mixed views on anonymity. On sites like The Conversation, I’m completely against them, even when they are constructive. On these types of sites there is limited or nor economic or professional consequence for posting negative but constructive comments. On Mumbrella the opposite is true. Without anonymity, constructive criticism is likely to have long term negative implications. Business does not like dissent; dissent is punished.
Mumbrella is also a PR vehicle for firms and individuals can post opinion pieces that dismiss the approaches and abilities of others, claim things without evidence are common, or push ideas that benefit them and are a detriment to others. On a site like Mumbrella that is fine, as long as there is a right of reply or the audience can honestly critique.
To help Mumbrella stay on top of things, maybe you could allow a reporting feature, only allow comments within a set time frame, and require a registered email address and real name, even if posting anonymously.
User ID not verified.
Free speech isn’t about the right to offend or about people’s feelings. It is about the right to express your views without censorship from those that disagree. The ideal is for discussions to move society forward, by letting ideas compete. Ideas without evidence or undermine others can be torn down. Free speech isn’t about creating a trolls paradise, rich or poor.
User ID not verified.
Not sure if this counts as on topic or adding to the topic (or none of the above), but I’m going to chuck it out anyway …
Is there any possibility that recent articles critical of the Prime Minister and News Ltd in the wake of the bushfire crisis and the volley of spicy comments from readers taking aim at selfsame targets attracted some heat from upstairs ?
I’m going to speculate … D’uh Yeah !
That said, I can only hope that it is only the comments from readers that are curtailed as a result, and not the work of the reporters themselves, which seemed entirely valid (if uncomfortable reading for those with partisan links.)
User ID not verified.
The right to free speech gives you the right to say things, it doesn’t give you the right to be heard. It’s not up to Mumbrella to give you a forum. You want free speech? Go to Twitter.
User ID not verified.
Thank you for retaining anonymous comments.
User ID not verified.
Quality over quantity is not a bad approch. This worries me though:
‘Do we want to publish this comment?’
Simply because its the thin end of the wedge of unfair moderation. Sure, your playground, your rules and if we don’t like it we will take our ball and go elsewhwere. One of the ongoing trends in the media is for people to take themselves, far far too seriously and have tickets on themselves no one else has. Maybe its unkind that this is pointed out to them online, but then again, sometimes the emporer needs reminding of his nudity. But before not publishing its good to ask yourself some questions like:
“Am I not publishing this because its embarrassing to me, even though I’ve legitimately stuffed up?”
“Am I not publishing this because I like my guest and am protecting them rather than being fair minded?”
“Am I not publishing this because I simply don’t like the view point it expresses (particularly when its a minority view)? ”
Worth asking because if you get the answer wrong too often you lose touch. Then you lose the audience.
User ID not verified.
I’m a 66 year old female retiree who was in the media business nearly 30 years ago and have always enjoyed Mumbrella to keep up with the latest. I have made my share of comments on certain topics over the years – tv ads mainly and although there are some who are obviously from the opposition, a lot are commenting from the heart and not the business. So I hope that these are still given the chance to view their opinion if it is constructive and sensible.
User ID not verified.
Thanks for a very reasonable and thorough explanation Tim. Whether or not individual readers and commentators choose to agree, they can’t argue with the justification. Personally i like the concept that any contribution to published work is subject to editorial approval – but hope that you’ll use that editorial approval to encourage lively debate
User ID not verified.
Hi Rutegar,
That wasn’t the case. Sadly, despite the Scotty from Marketing nickname, I doubt anybody from the PM’s office looks at Mumbrella. And as even News Corp’s critics would acknowledge, the organisation has got a very thick skin when it comes to criticism. They haven’t complained.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
How are we going to know whats worth reading then, without the comment counter?
Also I’d like to know if you auto-ban certain IP addresses, as someone who works from a few of them…
User ID not verified.
“Free speech means the right to offend whomever the hell you want whenever the hell you want to.”
Rubbish. Free speech means the right to express your opinion without fear of retaliation. Believing you have the right to offend whomever the hell you want whenever the hell you want to is not called free speech, that’s called being a wanker.
User ID not verified.
Exactly!
It was the only way to navigate to something newsworthy.
It’s time Mumbrella also dropped the ridiculous amount of boring headshot PR appointment stories which starves the main page of breathable content.
User ID not verified.
I’ve also wondered that as well!
Does someone become such a nuisance that they are auto banned?
User ID not verified.
“… TV viewers who arrived after Googling a particular show …”
You seem like just another publisher complaining about Google sending traffic your way. News Corp whines about Google taking snaps of their news even though those links on Google land on the News Corp websites.
So your website is indexed by Google so that Google sends readers to your site, which no doubt helps you sell ads as you can show how many readers you have. But you don’t like the quality of the readers sent by Google it seems, “quality over quantity”, as they are just regular television viewers rather than professionals in the marketing and media business. You should put all your content behind a hard paywall where all that is on public view is the login page, meaning that Google will not index your content and send non-professional readers to your website. Of course it is those very people who ultimately pay your wage – the average consumer who buys the products marketers promote.
User ID not verified.
What a perversion of human rights you poorly attempt to assert.
Yes, you have the right to free speech. That is indisputable.
But your right to free speech does not usurp other people’s rights to the even more fundamental human rights such as freedom of race, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, no religion etc.
User ID not verified.
In an age where the comments are usually better than the articles they sit under, it’s a risky road to travel down.
Anonymity is important but needless trolling is not. Saying that, we say what happened to Mumbrella Asia when comments became “moderated” – ended up a bit of a joke
User ID not verified.
Guys, sorry, this is an absolute garbage decision.
The amount of yes men nodding in agreement is testament of what an overly sensitive society we’ve become.
One thing that the U.S gets right is FREE SPEECH.
Australia is so backwards in this regard, and a publisher making the call on what is worth reading or not is censorship, plain and simple.
Sorry Tim, I think you’ve got this one wrong, I applaud your posts and the way you give us a glimpse into your reasoning, but on this occasion, you sir are 100% WRONG.
Enjoy a sanitized Mumbrella everyone.
User ID not verified.
spot on
User ID not verified.
A good example of why this is bad policy. Says Chris “ we’ll only support you if you do it our way” it used to be called bullying.
User ID not verified.
Ever heard of perjury, slander, or libel? Even in the US, free speech is never absolute.
You are free to have as many offensive opinions as you like; Mumbrella is equally free to not publish them. Free speech is not free reach.
User ID not verified.
Is this approach sustainable into the future though? As Mumbrella grows, so will the number of comments you have to moderate. I’m skeptical whether one editor (Hi Vivienne) can keep up with applying consistent journalistic rigour to each and every comment day after day.
I generally defend anonymous commenting but I get that a professional trade rag doesn’t want to turn into 4chan. Semi-anonymous or persistent pseudonym systems can strike a good balance. They can achieve free discussion without becoming an outright trollfest and they seem to work pretty well for this industry. You can check fishbowl for an example of the former and /r/advertising on reddit for the latter to see how those work out with minimal need for moderation.
Sure, you can create a new pseudonym but that can be easily solved with a waiting period before a new pseudonym can comment – say, 72 hours to account for the somewhat slower news cycle of the trade press. Combined with regular cleanup of unused profiles, this makes it easy to ensure regular, invested Mumbrella readers fill the comment section rather than bussed-in sycophants and wandering troll brigades.
User ID not verified.
Bravo, Mumbrella.
Anonymous comments provide the opportunity for readers to express themselves without fear of recrimination, and many successful communities globally (e.g Reddit) allow comments without confirmed identity (I wrote an article for Mumbrella about this last year: https://mumbrella.com.au/banning-anonymous-comments-wont-make-the-internet-better-586668)
I am sure I am not the only long-time reader who has noticed the decline of comments here as people have flocked to the site due to various political bandwagons, which undermines the opportunity for decent discussion.
An understanding of nuance is a key attribute for any community manager. No comment policy will ever be able to capture all the ways that a comment can be irrelevent, damaging or non-productive, so it should really be up to the person moderating to decide what to allow, within the organisation’s moderation policy.
If we think about the Mumbrella comments section being the equivalent to a dinner party at a private house, the host has the right to decide who to invite and what the house rules are.
Good luck implementing this new policy, I have hope that it will lead to readers crafting better comments so that they are more likely to have their responses published.
User ID not verified.
I totally agree! Although this decision is well thought-out, clearly and articulately justified, has a noble goal of increasing the level of intelligent debate and commentary within the site, as well as reducing uninformed and baseless vitriol (and those depressingly banal proclamations of love for talk-back radio hosts and TV personalities)…I will THOROUGHLY miss my side serving of spicy, spicy Mumbrella comments while eating honey chicken for lunch.
User ID not verified.
Hi Wario,
I will certainly be keeping an eye on whether it is sustainable.
Thanks for the feedback. I’ll keep the company, and the audience, updated with how it’s tracking.
Vivienne – Mumbrella
@Honey Chicken…
I must agree that Mumbrella served without extreme spice on the side is going to be an acquired taste. I too enjoy the sampling the spiciest of comments while I eat my (rubbish) tuna and rice at my desk.
User ID not verified.
Good effort, although consider how few comments controversial articles on AdNews get. Mostly zero. It looks like no one reads it.
I am a mid level manager in an industry with egos, people who never forget, bridges to burn and job flipping as an only path forward to get incremental wage increases.
With all of this, having an anonymous platform to comment means we can all contribute to things that matter, like chastising Rupert Murdoch or calling out agency groups’ reasons for their near collapse.
And I thank you dearly for this outlet… As myself as well as others… Come here for the stories, but stay for the comments.
User ID not verified.
100% correct re Linkedin. When people are actually themselves it creates a few environments. Some leap at the chance to self promote and big note themselves. People only comment to give nothing but praise. Or people do not comment at all. When anonymous, we can truly be ourselves and be critical.
The anonymous comments on Mumbrella are the reason it is worth coming back. Its raw and it’s true. It broadens the conversation and adds an edge. Great journalism has an edge to it. Nobody is safe. Think Chris Hitchens vs Jordan Peterson (Peterson is partisan and speaks to his fan base. Hitchens was more than happy to go against his fan base.)
God I miss Hitch:(
#epsteindidntkillhimself
User ID not verified.
Righto, I look forward to seeing how the policy works out. There are a handful of lively and thriving marketing/advertising/PR discussion communities out there but like so much of the internet, they’re all American-centric. Australia never really had a space like that as far as I’m aware, despite a great need for one. Whether intentionally or not, I feel like the Mumbrella comment section has de facto become that space and it would be a terrible shame if the spirit of it died. That’s my two cents.
User ID not verified.
Only a Sith deals in Absolutes
User ID not verified.
I agree very well said.
User ID not verified.
There have always been anon comments on the net, and in the 90s it was kind of fun. Stupid fun, really. The amount of fun, stupid stuff from the net in the 90s and early 00s was amazing. Soundboards, tranny or granny quizzes… Nobody took the net (or themselves) so seriously.
And look at the great advertising campaigns that came out of that. Subservient chicken as one example. Just pure silliness.
As internet access has increased and people have moved much more online for their source of news (oooh, and opinion – aka MY OPINION!!!!) things have changed. Not just on advertising blogs. Witness Donald Trump and Brexit. Rise of the right wing. It’s so damn serious now. Flame-wars for people (gasp!) just having a different opinion. Extremists are popping up everywhere and it’s because people can find that weird messed up group they think they identify with and encourage each other.
The only way to get rid of ‘shit-posting’ is to not attract shit people to your site. And when it’s in your best interests to have as many people as possible hitting your site (understandable, circulation figures) – it’s not going to be an elite intellectually informed discussion.
User ID not verified.
One of Mumbrella’s great strengths is it’s comments. It is one of few Australian forums where people who know something about what they want to talk about feel safe to publish. I can only hope this will continue. So far so good.
User ID not verified.
This new policy has killed off comments quite nicely!
User ID not verified.