Dear friends,
Yesterday I posted a subtitled video which I knew would be controversial, but I also considered that this was an important topic, so I went ahead with it. This resulted in a few average comments, and some very good ones. But then, today, I saw these two:
The vilification of Peter the Great is a manifestation of (not so) subtle Russophobia, fear and ‘revolutionary’ hatred of Russia. The ‘Holy Rus’ that some people are nostalgic of is the Russia moaning under the ‘Tartar yoke’. The Romanovs were the first fully ‘Russian’ Tsars. They made Russia great.
and
Islam is in fact a sub-product of a “Judeo-Christian” vision of the world. The ‘Judeo-Christians’ were all the sects who, while accepting the historicity of the Messiah-ship and Prophet-hood of Jesus Christ, denied that He was God.
Of course, “white Western judeo-Christian world” does not include Russia. But it does include…Islam!
I noticed that in both cases, we are dealing with anonymous posts.
These are just two examples of what I absolutely loathe: a short series of unsubstantiated slogans masquerading as a “comment”.
Here is how this model works. Take any topic, especially one which people mistakenly believe they have an opinion about, let’s say, forestry. The typical “slogan pseudo-comment” will read something like this:
Forest are important for humanity. Several continents have forests. Rivers are important too, but not as important as forests. I wish forests did not have poison ivy. Animals like forests too. The Chinese communists are really evil. Napoleon was a great genius.
The above does bear a superficial resemblance to a paragraph, until you look closer and see that these are not really “sentences” but more a kind of “flow-of-semi-consciousness” slogans stringed together with no rhyme or reason. People who post this way also think that way (when I think I should have written “think that they think” that way, because this does not qualify as “thought”).
The idea that a thesis is best substantiated with logically processed facts simply does never even occur to them.
Our mods try really REALLY hard, but what are they supposed to do with people who simply have no idea how to think?
The rule of moderation #11 states: “Self evidently stupid, nonsensical and otherwise idiotic comments will be removed with no right to appeal. Frankly, idiots have been the plague of this blog and I am tired of them. From now on comments posted by people who are self-evidently stupid will be banned and their authors warned that a ban is next.”
But where do we draw the line?
Another plague for our moderators have been battling is what I call the “single issue crusaders“. These are folks who feel very VERY strongly about issue X (say, Islam, COVID, (((Jews))), Q-Anon, etc.) and have to always bring it all back to that single topic. Very typically, their actual level of understanding of topic X is exactly inversely proportional to their hell-bent determination to bring their favorite topic back to the forefront not matter what (why? simply, because those who understand issue X understand that it is complex, thus they prefer debating/discussing over sloganeering and preaching).
Our rules of moderation (see here: http://10.16.86.131/moderation-policy/) currently have twenty one (21!) rules. If we continue down this path, we will soon need a full book of rules and lawyers to navigate through them!
Besides, it is quite obvious that most commentators don’t bother reading the rules (one even told me that “since I am well educated, I don’t need to consult your rules”!).
And then, let’s be honest here, just take a look at a Bell Curve: we all can try to focus our efforts on the right hand side of that curve, but we cannot make the left side disappear, especially since folks on the left are too dull to realize where they stand on that curve. Yet infinitely stupid comments are, literally, a type of mental pollution, they derail intelligent discussions precisely by being so stupid. Shall we just ignore them, like mosquitoes on an otherwise very nice hike?
Then there are those who clearly do not read and/or understand what is written. Some even openly say so “I did not read the full article but… bla bla bla”. They are also the ones who typically send me angry “divorce letters”.
How about those who begin crusading against strawman arguments?!
I write A and they read non-A!
So what should I do?
Spell out what I am saying AND what I am NOT saying each time?!?!?! That is not doable, I tried that in the past. It does not work.
The extreme solution would be to shut down the comments section. I don’t want to do that.
Making more rules? As Putin said about forcing people to get vaccinated, “only a few hundred, maybe thousands, of people make the laws, but then millions work on how to circumvent or otherwise ignore them“. He is right.
So making more rules for our comments section is futile.
Make all the comments like those in the current “Vignette” series: only signed-in people can comment?
Maybe…
Banning “anonymous” comments would only be a stop-gap semi-temporary hack, those hell-bent on posting will easily bypass that external limitation.
Maybe accept reality as it is, no matter how frustrating and discouraging, is the only viable option and I should just read the “Serenity prayer” (God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference) every time one of these folks being spewing their nonsense?
Maybe…
So I turn to you, Saker community, what can you recommend? Is there anything we can do to finally free our comments section from this kind of mental garbage?
Personally, nothing demotivates me more than taking the time to put some very real effort into a post, or posting a superb guest post, only to then see the idiots (sorry, no better word comes to my mind right now) derail it all by their idiocy. I just feel like throwing in the towel, give it all up and do something easy and fun (like hiking) instead of putting so much efforts into the blog.
And if the above sounds to you like a frustrated cry for help, it’s because it is :-)
But if that’s just me, then I am okay with it: after all, I don’t write this blog for me, but for you all, my friends and members of the Saker community.
Can you live with more of the same, or do you want changes? If the latter, can you please suggest something, anything?
If you think it’s fine (maybe I am over-reacting!) – also please share your view with the rest of us.
Thanks to all, huge and cheers
Andrei
Yes, obviously a computer generated comment. The problem is to how to delete such comments but not to knee-jerk delete comments that you disagree with (even if you think the comment ‘stupid’).
The only path that still allows comments is to increase the cost of moderation but that cost is only likely to keep on increasing. It is worth noting that The Saker ranting against commentators is also a cost and will just turn away commentators and readers.
At some point, the only way for The Saker to be happy is not to allow any comments at all. Automated bots will eventually destroy such sites as this.
In the meantime, how about allowing readers an easy way to flag comments as “AI Bots”, ” Trolls”, etc. (The Unz Review operates something like this), i.e. allow the commentators to moderate themselves and forget about trying to micro-manage the comments section.
When in doubt- chuck it out. There is little benefit in wasting moderators’ time on dubious submissions.
Anyone who wants a serious discussion will redo the submission to something understandable and acceptable.
The only problem might be with those whose English is not very good. To get over this problem I would suggest to encourage people writing in their own languages instead of writing it in English if they don’t feel comfortable with English-maybe the moderators’ can suggest this to them if they feel the person is struggling with English. Machine translations are reasonable enough to get a gist of what is being said.
Saker – my advice, be cool about it. Can’t do much about idiots. Too many of them everywhere. Censorship is a slippery slope. Stick to your analysis. Ignore the comments section rather than over police it. You only frustrate yourself.
If dissent or spam bothers you, rather than elaborating rules, only permit your established friends to comment. They already provide most of the comments which your general readership will respect.
Saker,
Here are my thoughts on this topic:
1. You can return to your previous routine (modus vivendi) – write articles and let moderators deal with the Comments Section on their own (in my opinion, they are doing a very good job there);
2. If you’d rather do something with the Comments Section, then why don’t you
a) Add a membership (with annual payments) and offer these people a post-moderation for their posts?
b) All other commentators should register as well, confirming their emails and phone numbers; and for these people there would be a pre-moderation for their posts (as it is now).
The Moderation Policy as written is fine. There are some issues with AI written posts that other commentators have mentioned and I agree with. As AI improves it will be more difficult to spot these but that is simply a risk that every blog site will be dealing with.
Regarding posts though, I saw a similar sequence of events happen at the old Truth-out Town Forum once that blog came to the attention of some people who I believe resided in DC. They were flooded with inane comments, destructive infiltrator trolls, and finally shut their site down. I believe they were also targeted by an Israeli operation that I can’t remember the name where bloggers are directed to disrupt any site not supportive of Israel.
I don’t believe there is anything you can do but ride it out, make sure that the anonymous option is removed, and perhaps use a visual code prior to posting to avoid machine generated comments.
On another note, first time commentators should be regarded with some caution by the moderators. We’ve had several who appeared, targeted one specific topic – only – and then disappeared and never to comment again under that name. The one that irks me specifically was on a BLM forum where my comments did not get past the moderator, yet this new blogger seemed to be given priority while breaking several rules.
Overall, this site is very good at providing rational discourse in a time of irrationality and the comments are generally as good as, sometimes better than, the article. You are doing a much needed service providing the counter punch to the hogwash that passes as news these days. Full speed ahead and hell damn the torpedoes!
After skimming through the comments, while there are many suggestions, the one, the main one, that appears to erk, annoy, really try the patience of most commentators is the ‘anonymous’ handle. Eliminate that, try it for a
while and see if that helps.
On a personal note……do take the walk in the woods, regardless of how you feel about the blog…..it and the readers will be here when you get back…… I’d go as far as saying, if you can, take the walk before you touch the blog, a bit of a solitude thing, but free therapy and some exercise never hurts….
Cheers, De Lepre
I appreciate your blog, the depth of feeling and honesty you bring to your writing and the variety of viewpoints you give a platform to within your overall theme, which I would describe as an anti-imperialist analysis of the Great Game, exposing and opposing the demonizing of the Empire’s intended victims and other aspects of its full-spectrum warfare, from a place of passion and love.
This positioning of your blog requires its own Overton Window. Within that space you have writers from various traditions, using various analytic tools and having their own special interests and emotional commitments. I would assume that your moderators likewise represent such a spectrum from within your Window.
Rather than trying to solve the problem of trolls and AI bots with more rules and regulations, a task that will only become exponentially more onerous as you try to refine it, how about if you just start by eliminating posts that are obvious fakes, trolls or disinformation, but then, if one just rubs you wrong, forward it to the moderator you think would most appreciate it and let them decide?
In fact this wouldn’t have to be centralized. If the moderators all know of each other, any moderator could forward a post they weren’t sure about to another who they think might appreciate it for a second opinion.
p.s. I had to laugh when I got to “I wish forests did not have poison ivy.”
It’s your website, your audience and your brand to protect. Why waste your time reading every comment and trying to rank it according to some scale?
Just delete anything you don’t “like” and be done with it. The moderators will be less stressed, your time can be best spent on more productive things and the focus will be on the article, not the comments
Saker,
Thank you for the rant, even if you do not find a solution for a matter similar to herding cats, I am certain you will have fun reading comments about the comments and will make us laugh along the way. I was laughing so hard reading it, my wife asked me from the bedroom what was going on. I told her, “Just go to sleep.” How could I explain? Your imbroglio, to call it a name, for some reason reminded me of a tweet I saw earlier about an interaction between two Qanon diehards chatting about their gathering in Dallas today.
“I believe JFK is opening for the Rolling Stones tonight”
“What a moron, JFK was obviously killed by Hillary”
My point here is the dissonance, next to the total lost sense of reality. The comments dilemma permeates all sites open for people to opine on sundry subjects, and the internet allows anyone with a keyboard, a screen, and internet service to become an “expert” on any subject under the sun. IMHO, the main issue is how to keep commenters to stick to the subject, in this case defined by the article you post. Your logic is clear and easy to follow, your articles informative and on point.
As an example, and for what is worth, I will share my (short) experience with your site, and my commenting style, here and otherwise. This is not to say I have the right model, just a sample of the patterns your moderators should look for. I just joined your site three articles ago, commenting for the first time on your piece about Donbass. In general, my commenting style is to pick from the article whatever calls my interest, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph, and expand on it. First consideration is whether I have anything to contribute on the matter. Donbass is close to my heart, been following the conflict from the beginning, I will forever remember the day the Ukronazis declared Donbass (there was no LPR/DPR yet, they came later) an ATO, saw the CIA hand, and knew those people were in for years of suffering.
My comment was an expansion on your suggestion? :-) the “West needs to get another brutal smackdown,” and I offered what IMHO should be the Russian response. Then I found an article about the Ukronazis crying to the Europeans for a gas contract between Russia and Hungary bypassing Ukraine, saw that was in line with my suggested strategy to squeeze the Ukronazis economically, and posted a comment with a link to the article. Today I posted another comment about the non-coincidental start of military operations in Donbass and Syria, and how Turkey is using its “support” for Ukraine on the Crimean file and the Donbass weapons market, as a bargaining tool with Russia in Syria, adding links to articles about the developments.
Later you posted a new article about “Politico’s hallucinations” awarding “The top First Prize for stupidity…” to the UK. I took that phrase and suggested the runner-up prize for the monumentally stupid German defense minister threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia. My aim is to show that, right or wrong, there is a sequel and a congruency in my comments, and they revolve around whatever subject you are posting. Right below my last comment, I found two examples of the comments you are trying to expunge from your site. They are “anonymous,” they say nothing, relate to nothing, contribute nothing. Those are anonymous trolls.
Just FYI.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Anonymous on November 02, 2021 · at 7:35 pm EST/EDT
keep it up! Another excellent update on this unnecessary and tragic game. yes, the west makes things up and says that is true even if false! not to mention most american media sources make you sign up to see info, so they know what you read. stupid as stupid does. 200 km from border is well not on the border! Western fascism knows no shame. The English still think they rule the world and the seas…stupid as stupid does. I once said to an english person being cocky: how are you guys doing compared to India? India gains freedom and viola. English loses empire and say toujours we are the best. again is it not strange that we are in a pandemic and yet the west is digging in their bull heels just like it is a normal day.
Reply
Anonymous on November 02, 2021 · at 7:41 pm EST/EDT
it is obvious and clear that the occidental world is failing and falling like a bunch of apples. most people there do not see, and most certainly never admit any truth. the real danger is that though russia and china are being smart and are not falling yet for the endless traps the fascist west sets, any small spark in a number of locations could unleash a firestorm. are the youth of the west ready for a war? hardly, just the next tech toy. both russia and china understand this and smile at the games, saying; I hope you are having a wonderful holiday.
Reply
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
If computers are programmed to produce this kind of garbage, AI has no future. Whoever is posting this garbage, their intention, computers or not, is to flood your site with trolling garbage. I have witnessed the same trolling style in other sites, Israeli “hasbara” use it a lot to flood sites or articles they deem anti-Israel, anti-Semitic. However, they are not the only ones. This points out to another rule, or to a revision of your rules: do not allow anonymous comments. Your website is wide open to anyone signing with a fake email address. I could have done it; I chose not to. Posters’ culling is needed, and that can start with an automated sign-up feature that requires an authentication by sending a reply with a sign-in link to the email of potential posters. Once they authenticate the email, they can sign-in, start posting, no problem. This could be a beginning.
Remaining on topic is another issue. Posters go in different directions, and as with the examples you posted in your “rant,” digression is a common culprit. This is a thornier issue to tackle. If you are writing about a poor Russian being beaten by Dagestani thugs in Moscow, and you get a comment on Peter the Great and the Rus civilization, that is a non-starter. Your moderators should search and destroy those comments on sight.
An even more complicated issue is ideology, or a lack thereof. Few people in the digital age read and develop an intellect, right or left, most people have the attention span and the memory of a tweet. I see posters’ comments summarizing a complex issue in two lines, a-la “magister dixit.” Whether posters have a developed ideology or not, ideological biases affect us all, aware of it or not, – we all have ideological filters, a worldview, and our egos teach us every day ours is the right one. I am sure moderators in any site with political opinions face this conundrum.
Those are my two pennies. I believe this should be an ongoing discussion, posters should propose rules, you could subject them to vote, evaluate them for a while on a trial-and-error process of elimination, see what works. Good luck.
Lone Wolf
PS: Another not-so visible factor to add to the equation, is that humanity is in full regression, some places more than others, idiocy is prevailing and permeating all aspects of life. Unless you shut the door to all comments, some idiocy will always filter.
With all respects, Saker, I think you are getting tangled in rules and legalistic approaches. Here is a simple proposal:
State a few simple rules in broad, common sense terms. No swear words, no obscenities, no vulgarity, no obsessive rants, no patently stupid stuff, etc. The interpretation of what is obscene and what is passable to be left to the moderators because trying to define vulgarity, gross stupidity, obsessive ranting and raving etc. is almost impossible. Moderators to flag borderline cases for a second moderator’s opinion, and if both agree the post gets deleted. Three rejected posts and the poster gets banned.
A slightly subjective approach perhaps, but then who can objectively define the difference between art and pornography or that between incisive criticism and personal insult.
A captcha extension works fine in just about all situations…
It might prove to be an example of “Gresham’s Law” in action. “The bad drives out the good.” (It wasn’t actually Gresham who came up with this, but he gets the credit it for it. And he was talking about coinage, not people.) (Texas saying: “Don’t ‘rastle’ with a pig: you’ll just get muddy…and the pig loves it.”)
Winston Churchill said “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” But he also said something like “Democracy is a flawed form of government. But the others are so much worse.”
As you pointed out, those in the left end of the bell curve often don’t realize it. “Everyone’s entitled to his or her own opinion, but that doesn’t automatically make the opinion worth hearing.”
Thanks to you, and to your moderators. You’re doing the best you can. And I think you’re going a good job of it. Yeah, the bastards can get you down. But it’s great you don’t let them keep you down for long, or bring you down very far. I’m glad you ranted. All of us needed that. Hang in there!
Never get into a battle of wits with an ignorant person. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience…..old saying….totally true. Ignore the jerks and keep fighting the good fight.
Saker,
It seems the consensus is for disappearing the Anonymous …great Idea,most of them spout garbage and no doubt a few are genuine ,perhaps lazy about picking a name.
I would caution on the thumbs up though, not everyone who reads this blog will agree with things said here and thats ok as we all are individuals, but to start thumbs up, is it not the same as a like on Fakebook?
My two cents worth.
Keep up the good work.
Have a generic page where this sort of stuff can be transferred. Entries on the page will expire after 1 week / 1 month / 1 year (configurable) and then disappear into the ether. The original post could be replaced by a link to its new location. The page is publicly accessible so anyone can see the original. That way moderator abuse (should it ever happen) would be observable. This approach need not apply to racist, homophobic, treeist, etc posts which could be deleted if appropriate.
No censorshp. No cluttering of valid comments with irrlevant nonsense. The blog archive isn’t cluttered witn garbage.
So you think I, as moderator, should bounce junky posts about the website and insert links to that junk- ‘cos someone else is lacking either the brains or the manners to submit a decent comment?
No.
I’m a moderator, not an editor.
PS. If you have a problem with moderator abuse then submit a comment saying so – and it will be trashed to the Saker. Simple as that.
“Anonymous” is not necessarily a name – it is also the system default inserted when the name field is left blank. Blank anonymous may be deliberate or – more likely – accidental.
Name, email and webpage sit above the comment entry section: bypass them with a click of the mouse to get down to the nitty-gritty and when you’re finished thinking and typing – submit it. Oops – didn’t go back to fill in the name and there’s no way the commenter can pull the comment back to make the correction and the comment goes up under then name “Anonymous.” (Yep, I know, ‘cos it’s happened to me.)
Solution – if poss. require that the name is filled in before allowing it to be posted. That way, any “Anonymous” is a deliberately entered name and as useful and informative as “asdfgffdd” – ie. good for the trash bin. … Just a thought.
But are they actually “derailing” the comment section if they are only a minority who are posting these kinds of comments?
Maybe just keep putting these moderator warnings or indented moderator comments below their posts as your are already doing in order for other readers to know that these are comments that have issues.
Or filter them out completely. i think the first option is better and more educational for other readers.
Follow your rules of moderation. Period.
We like what you post and visit your site every day.
Thanks
By all means keep the comments section. The comments on The Saker are generally pretty good–some are excellent. Blow past–ignore the stuff that is idiotic. If you want to be alternately amazed, infuriated or amused, try reading the comments in a news site aimed at the general public–and despair for the future of mankind.
Thank you Andrei, if I may call you that.
You have always been level -headed in my view.
Me? I’m trying, so please moderate me. Ha, sarcasm.
Don’t let it get to you. Ignore them and let your readers tear them to shreds.
I think other posters might be on to something re: some posters being bots, however I’ve known a fair # of people IRL that would fail a Touring test.
Agree–no more anonymous posts.
Remember those old office rubber stamps you could use to stamp documents in red? How about something akin to that? Leave the poster’s name, delete the comment and leave just a stamp. Examples of stamps could be: irrelevant; incoherent; nonsense; abusive (ad hominem attacks); or whataboutery–a very useful British term for a post that offers something like Yes (conceding the point), but what about . . . (meaning the other lot do it too, as if this somehow invalidates the point made).
I wonder if a two-step procedure for commenting might weed out some of the most virulent pests. Step 1: the commenter submits their comment and it is automatically parked for a certain period of time (one hour, two, six? I don’t know). Step 2: after the parking period has expired, the commenter is free to go back and edit the comment and re-submit, at which point it goes to moderation in the normal way. Any comments that have not been edited (actually changed, even if just in the most minor way) and re-submitted at Step 2 automatically go to trash.
This might result in the following:
. no bots (on the assumption that they are drive-by shooters and don’t or can’t come back for Step 2);
. few, if any, real human drive-by shooters (on the assumption that they won’t come back for Step 2…too much work);
. fewer fights (on the assumption that after the parking period has expired, hot heads may have cooled and editing will serve the interests of mollification);
. those who have a low motivation to want to contribute sincerely to the blog might have an incentive to spare everyone else and just not bother commenting (on the assumption that Step 2 is too much work); and
. those who wish to comment sincerely might take the opportunity at Step 2 to reflect on the first draft of their comment and edit it for greater clarity, thoughtfulness or succinctness, etc.
Perhaps those with a track-record of submitting excellent (or, at the very least, harmless) comments could be given a ‘gold pass’, in which case their comments would go straight to moderation at Step 1. Such ‘excellent’ commenters might even be tagged as such, as an incentive for them to keep up the good work and maintain their status, and as a guide to those new to the blog.
I am not technically competent in the fine art of blog management so I have no idea if any of this is possible or, even if possible, straightforward.
Sorry to ps but another consequence of my thought bubble above might be a reduced and simpler load for the moderators.
Only accept comments from readers with proven identity who have to use an assigned password in order to post. They still can use a nick and stay anonymous among the other readers. In this blog there are not more than say fifty serious posters – thus the work to establish the procedure is negligible.
P.S. Sometimes I had the feeling that the Saker writes like a bot.
Saker is on a big one here! Dear Saker accept that most people are stupid, they can not in any way make coherent thoughts, and absolutely no comments, because they are semi illiterate.
This is fact, the Lix index have gone down over the years, and bear in mind many commenters here are not English/American, but only use English/American as a secondary form of communication.
You have started a blog, one I am very fond of, but not all can address it per functionary. Let people speak with the voices they have.
When it’s good these comments are of the highest quality I have read anywhere. I think reading AI goobledegoop can rot a persons brain. One struggles as there is a hint of something but no. Too much of this could chew up the very best mods.
Make it like a graduate level class. At the first hint of spewing send them to the hall. Don’t explain. You’ve done that.
You might cash in on those who want a pass to the good seats. 100 a month and then put a disclaimer on their that they can’t see. Not one for tech trivia, it all costs. Sorry for your trouble. I learned I was out of my league a long time ago here. Still the best reading on the web even if I haven’t had my shots.