Facebook has introduced their comments plug in for content websites to use in place of their current comment section. The benefit for sites are clear as readers can use their FB login to comment on a site without having to set up and administer a password and verification system. And when someone leaves a comment it appears on that person’s newsfeed for their friends to see = viral!
One of the anticipated outcomes for sites that integrate Facebook comments is a reduction in the number of nasty comments from anonymous or pseudonymous commenters. Peruse any news or political site and you’ll see the ones; you’ll also see a lot of smart and thoughtful commentary. Some sites do a good job of moderating and policing the bad comments, some don’t moderate them at all, allowing for open discourse, but smaller sites—and in particular, brand sites that can’t always afford to let ill-will plague their users’ experience, don’t have the manpower (or stomach) to deal with the situation. Facebook comments seem like a good solution – at least on the surface.
From the user vantage point, I’m not crazy about it. It is not advantageous for consumers if Facebook becomes a big walled environment within the larger web. Sharing on Facebook among permissioned friends is what users sign up for, but having their profile open to random people through comments is unwise as a privacy/security risk. The use of real name and identity will have a chilling effect on the desire to comment on topics outside of your professional venue. We live in a hypersensitive and partisan era where flame wars break out easily over the major topics of the day. Do you really want to express your thoughtful and reasonable opinion on such hot button topics as abortion, public employee unions, local politicians and global warming, not only using your name, but also potentially identifying your family, friends, and employer along the way? I do believe I’ll pass on that.
My local paper, the Salem News, had a rollicking and active comments section that contained a mix of good writing and opinion, tempered with some vicious personal attacks and outrageous accusations. It could be great fun to read, and a hot story could get 25-50 comments—some received well over 100. For reasons that are not entirely clear, they went to a “real name’ Facebook ID login to “add more civility” a few weeks ago. (Some speculate that any number of local politicians squelched the section because they were getting pounded by anonymous comments.) If deafening silence is civility, then they succeeded. Most stories now have no comments whatsoever, and the small handful of people who do comment are local cranks, retirees, and people trying to get name recognition.
This small struggling local paper could have leveraged all the great content that was being provided and should have done a better job moderating the mean-spirited junk. Instead of monetizing the free content, increasing engagement and expanding their readership, they’ll likely see their traffic cut in half, which, needless to say, will very directly impact revenue. This is just one example, but one that should give pause to publishers considering this solution. As always, put yourself in the shoes of your customers and do what is right by them.
