No Com­ment

The Walrus - - LETTERS -

How sur­pris­ing to see on­line com­ments al­lowed un­der a story con­demn­ing them (“Me against the Troll Army,” De­cem­ber). I wish that the au­thor weren’t right and that we could have in­tel­li­gent con­ver­sa­tions on­line, fa­cil­i­tated by jour­nal­ists. In­stead, vit­riol per­vades com­ment boards and so­cial me­dia. Still, I’m de­ter­mined to al­low al­ter­na­tive opin­ions into my life: it’s dan­ger­ous to delete them.

Claudette La­combe

Leth­bridge, AB

Two changes will elim­i­nate much of the abuse. First, do not al­low anony­mous com­ments. Sec­ond, use a live mod­er­a­tor. The writer has my sym­pa­thy — for sev­eral years, I was a web edi­tor at the Win­nipeg Free Press and mod­er­at­ing com­ments was one of my du­ties — but when you’re in con­trol, the cesspool smells only as bad you let it. Gor­don Arnold

Win­nipeg, MB

To date on the­wal­rus.ca , the com­ments un­der this story are all sup­port­ive. You want to elim­i­nate such pos­i­tiv­ity in order to avoid neg­a­tiv­ity? We can’t sac­ri­fice the good. In­stead, choose to re­sist the bad. Amy Starkey

North Van­cou­ver, BC

nope . . . keep com­ments. Com­ments are an on­line ther­mome­ter, plus get­ting rid of com­ments is cow­ardly. — Sammy Younan @my­pal­sammy

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.