The anatomy of the bottom half
The plan, originally, was just to grab a quick image from the comments, add an attempt at interpretation, then post it on Twitter. Soon after starting Unacceptable Hull Live Comments promoted us to their followers, and pointed out that they started much the same way. Their account, however, has evolved, they now do some great work in highlighting Reach’s appalling model, and we wonder if we have changed, too.
We would not seek to duplicate what HullComments are doing so well, and feel we may be evolving in a different direction. We have been spending a lot of time thinking about the motivations and psychology of the bottom half. There is, probably, lots of research on it already, but our findings might have some value.
The rules of the bottom half
First, a lot of these people are deeply objectionable. But their motivations seem, almost always, driven by insecurity. The victims of their comments almost always offer some perceived threat to them.
Second, a few of them are making a valiant — although we think futile — effort to stand up to them (we would name Fent1ger, Grimboy, and SnideyMariney, but there are others).
Third, it is Reach’s system that empowers them.
Reach publishes stories that appear designed to attract the worst type of comments, then use an anonymous commenting system that allows people to post things they would be unlikely to say publicly. Then, others that would not agree publicly can join in, or they could just create another account to say the same thing (accusations of multiple accounts are common, and based on styles, views, and apparent slips, we think there are several).
Because we are stupid, we did a quick tally of the commenters we have posted to date. These have all featured on our Twitter account for comments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or just plain stupid.
It proved a slightly tedious exercise, if we’re honest. But having started — and with Glastonbury as background — we felt we had to finish.
A few things stood out, the first was the number of people we’d tweeted. Ninety-six accounts have featured on our account. A much higher number than we expected. Of course, some of these will be aliases. And some appear to have been created for a single post. Perhaps the worst example of this was set up to celebrate the death of two people, and shockingly the post remains, although Reach saw fit to remove some comments calling it out. But many seem to comment a few times, then just drift off.
But being optimists, we also wondered if there was some hope there.
The half-full glass
It seems too much to ask, but there have been a few things that made us wonder if, perhaps, the commenting community isn’t beyond redemption.
MrDoughty, for example, seems to have become more sensible. We even spotted one comment from them suggesting that they had started posting as something of a joke, but were now engaging differently. And their posts do appear to have changed in tone and focus.
A different case is Jacklad222. At one point by far the most prolific objectionable commenter, shortly after we started tweeting, they seemed to wilt in the face of challenge. They had something of a meltdown, accusing some progressive posters of being moderators, then disappeared and have not returned.
Notably, though, three commenters are responsible for nearly a fifth of the objectionable comments. The top eight are responsible for a third. And that number may well be worse, there is a chance that some are multiple accounts operated by the same person, and all have had many comments deactivated as revealed by breaks in threads and replies to their no longer extant comments.
Why change could be easy
We spent a while debating whether we should publish this, since we are sure some would consider an appearance a badge of honour. But things like racism don’t disappear because you ignore racists. However, it also highlights that it isn’t really a tricky problem to solve.
If Reach were to actively police the comments, and suspend even just the top three accounts, there is a good chance that the dynamic of the bottom half would change. If nothing else, it would be 20% less unpleasant.
Or, if they removed the easy anonymity of the site, then it might be that those commenters would self-censor, aware that their views are unwelcome in civilised society. (A common theme from them is their belief in their elevated social standing.)
It won’t happen because Reach want the shocking comments. They want the conflict, as heroic as the efforts of Fent1ger and others are, they are merely supporting the Reach business model. And as much as Reach can point to their House Rules, they are a fig-leaf.
If you know sybwm62, FishyFingers, or MightierChoddier, we’d love to know if they come across as abhorrent racist homophobes in person. Or if it’s just something they only do for the benefit of Reach.
