Comment Moderation

Megan McArdle is leery of moderating her comment section:

I exercise a pretty light hand on the comments section. That's a tough choice. I could probably have a more civil comments section if I were more willing to delete nasty comments and ban trolls.

On the other hand, I don't trust myself in the position of censor. That's why I'm pretty obsessed with a hard core version of the first amendment: I don't trust anyone as a censor. One will always find most outrageous those people who disagree with one's own pet notions. If I started deleting comments, the net effect would be to pull the comments section towards agreeing with my particular brand of libertarianish, market-loving philosophy. This is not, to my mind, the point of the comments section. So I delete comments only when they are obscene or intolerably nasty; I ban people only when they have a history of repeatedly derailing threads, defaming my family, or similarly doing things that would get them kicked out of any decent private home.

She goes on to make an extended plea for self-policed civility.

Her post prompts Ilya Somin, who calls it "excellent," to observe that:

I disagree slightly with Megan’s analogy between comment moderation and government censorship. The latter is far more dangerous than the former. Nonetheless, aggressive moderation is problematic for the reasons she describes. I also agree with Megan’s point about comments that attack motives, and would add that even if your opponents really do have bad intentions, that doesn’t prove their arguments are wrong, so it doesn’t really help make your case.

I could perhaps overcome the tendency to favor commenters who support my own views by adopting consistent bright line rules (e.g. — ban anyone who call anyone else an “idiot” or “unpatriotic”). But such rules have serious shortcomings of their own: they are insensitive to nuance and context, and can be cleverly circumvented once they become known (e.g. — using various euphemisms to substitute for “idiot”). A related problem is that I don’t want to devote my limited blogging time to careful analysis of comments to determine which ones deserve to be deleted, issued warnings, and so on. I think both my goals and those of the readers will be better served if I devote as much of my blogging time as possible to actually writing posts.

With all due deference, I can only say: poppycock.

My policy on comment moderation is based on the moment in the 1980 Presidential campaign when Ronald Reagan declared "I paid for this microphone."

This is not a public forum. I pay for it. So there are no rules. There is simply an arbitrary despotism in which freedom of speech depends mainly on how cranky I'm feeling at the moment. Granted, long time readers get more slack than newbies, but nobody has a "right" to be heard in this space any more than you would in my house. If you think that's censorship, you're wrong. It's just private property.

Comments

[jellis58]

Professor Bainbridge,

I dont think that either Megan Mcardle or Ilya Somin are trying to say that free speech rules apply to a blog, or that there is right to comment, or that a comment policy that says this is an "arbitrary despotism in which freedom of speech depends mainly on how cranky I'm feeling at the moment" is wrong or blameworthy.

I think they are just saying that they feel that a lightly regulated comment section makes for a better blog. If the purpose of allowing comments at all is to foster a debate and exchange of ideas about the post (which might not be your purpose, but it seems to be theirs) then heavy handed moderation is a bit like inviting people to your house for a discussion on a topic and then kicking them out for saying thinks you dont like. Sure you have that right but it makes for a pretty lame discussion and is counterproductive of your purpose for inviting them over in the first place. I think that was their point, especially so for Ilya Somin.

Now I'm curious to see if this comment is deleted or not.

[NJconservative]

Of course it's poppycock. Censorship can occur only in the public sector, or commons, or however one would like to define that which can be controlled by government.

As you say, you own your blog -- you get to decide everything about it. Private property is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

[Steven Taylor]

I don't moderate on my site simply because I think it slows down the conversation.

[Eric Rasmusen]

You're right. More to the point: a magazine or journal editor who publishes everything that comes in doesn't know what's good for his readers.