Some interesting points Neil, although unfortunately I don’t think blogging on CiF as opposed to writing op eds makes that much difference to some posters. I’ve written a couple of personal pieces on there and then been told in no uncertain terms that “CiF is a serious political site, if you want to write stuff like this stick to women’s magazines.” There’s also a danger of women writers then being labelled as lightweights, while the men are seen as the ones that can be relied on to write the serious political stuff.

I think Sunny is right when he says that one of the most effective ways of dealing with the constant hate and abuse is for the writer to take part in the debate on the thread, and I would also add that writing regularly for the site also helps, as does taking part in discussions on some of the other threads. If the readers know that you’re prepared to have a dialogue with them rather than just talking at them, they’re far more likely to want to engage with you.

Obviously there are always going to be some posters who just want to go on there and hurl abuse, but the only way to deal with them is to ignore them. I used to get really hurt by some of the comments I receive on my pieces, but I’ve learnt to just concentrate on responding to those who are engaging with the arguments, and to ignore all the trolls.

Btw, I agree with you about Twisty – I’m a fan of hers too.

“CiF is a serious political site, if you want to write stuff like this stick to women’s magazines.”

Ah yes, away with you, silly woman, whilst we serious men slobber over our keyboards. I had a university supervisor who once compared my writing to a woman’s magazine. I don’t think it was meant as a compliment.

I think personalising CiF might have something of a moderating effect, but you’re totally right that it wouldn’t deter career trolls. Equally, if you were to personalise your blogging more, you’d raise the risk of trolls using that to hurl even more personal and nasty attacks than “why don’t you fuck off to Woman’s Own?”

I’d pretty much agree with the other points, though rather than simply ignoring trolls, I think it’d be fun if there were more commenters around who single them out and subject them to persistent and merciless mockery (a ‘troll patrol’, if you like) like you see on some community blogs. But then we run into another key flaw with CiF – it just isn’t a community.

Why does no one accept that abusive comments should simply be moderated out of existence?

Ignoring the problem doesn’t make it go away. The only way trolls learn is by seeing their precious comments expunged from existence. All that effort at making themselves look clever for nowt.

Leaving such comments in place unfortunately does drive the tone of the conversation which no amount of interactivity can turn round.

Not all writers have time to respond to blog posts, and on CIF in particular I don’t blame writers like Polly Toynbee staying above the fray considering the ill informed abuse she attracts from the foaming mouth brigade.

The only benefit of the anarchism of CIF is seeing just how vastly superior paid commentators like Toynbee, Jenkins, Monbiot etc are to the ignorant amateur hacks who fail spectacularly to cut them down.

Ben – I’m more than happy to see the abusive comments moderated out of existence, although I have to say some of my threads would be practically empty if the moderators enforced the rules to the letter……

But a lot of the criticism Polly gets is precisely because she doesn’t get involved in the thread – I honestly think she’d get a better reception on there if she came back and responded to people. Having said that, I also agree that she shouldn’t have to, and that not everyone has the time to respond.

I’ve had a couple of occasions where I’ve not been around when my pieces went up, and when I have arrived late on the scene found that the threads have descended into more than the usual levels of name calling and vitriol. I’ve thought then that had I been around earlier to intervene things may have panned out differently – unfortunately the change to a 48 hour cut off for threads isn’t going to help that.

Neil – “Equally, if you were to personalise your blogging more, you’d raise the risk of trolls using that to hurl even more personal and nasty attacks”

Exactly. The more you reveal about yourself the more ammunition it then gives some people. I remember shortly after I revealed I had a son on one of the threads, someone went on and posted a hilarious imaginary scenario that involved my son being falsely accused of rape. Sick bastard.

Cath – yep, the posts where the author comes back to defend clarify their points seem to attract a bit less vitriol in general* (and for Mike White’s blog, MW often moves the debate on to interesting tangents).

* With the exception of Seth Freedman’s pieces but that’s I/P for you…

Daniel Davies wrote an excellent post on this topic.

One other comment: if the problem is an ugly and hostile atmosphere at CIF, then part of the blame must go to idiotic contributers who write aggressive, brainless nonsense there. If you deliberately set out to wind people up, what sort of response do you expect?

I’ve written a couple of personal pieces on there and then been told in no uncertain terms that “CiF is a serious political site, if you want to write stuff like this stick to women’s magazines.”

By the commenters or the site editors Cath?

Lol! The commenters Sunny

Do you think if I got that kind of response from the editors I’d still be writing for them?

Btw – I’m on the panel with you on Monday. It should be a good debate.

I wrote a blog post about this topic yesterday (the title is flippant – read to the end) There are too many people who write provocatively, call people names, talk rubbish etc. and then whinge and cry about ‘abuse’ when some of the same comes back from the other side.

Julie Bindel and Polly Toynbee are prime examples of this. For Bindel, see my post. She either can’t tell the difference between positions opposed to her own, mild trollery, and personal abuse, or she doesn’t care.

For Polly Toynbee, commenters are “amateur hacks who fail to cut her down”, are they (BenM)? Why, then, was there until 2006 a blog solely dedicated to correcting Polly’s factual errors? How come to this day Tim Worstall manages to do so just about every single week?
Because she talks rubbish, that’s why.

Ha ha, that’s what I thought too. Yeah, I saw that. Looking forward to it!

P.S. Cath: The link from your posts to your Comment Is Free page doesn’t work, because the second ‘t’ in Elliott is missing.

“Exactly. The more you reveal about yourself the more ammunition it then gives some people.”

Cath, Sunny -

A hypothetical method for deterring trolls would be to reveal that you have a long and distinguished history of righteous but bloodthirsty violence. They won’t stick around.

BenSiz – hah! Good idea.

QT: Why, then, was there until 2006 a blog solely dedicated to correcting Polly’s factual errors? How come to this day Tim Worstall manages to do so just about every single week?

Here’s the thing you see, libertarians and right-wingers have too much time on their hands. I could launch several blogs dedicated to refuting te crap that comes out of the Daily Mail (though there are blogs dedicated to this already), Mel Phillips, Nadine Dorries, Matthew D’ancona, Rod Liddle, Charles Moore, Simon Heffer, Anthony Browne etc. In fact, the list is endless. But it would be a waste of my time to spend too long on it.

In fact there’s a post Unity has written about hypocritical right wing outrage re: the BBC, and once he posts it, it’ll be a prime example of one fact – most right wing outrage is baselessly manufactured rubbish.

In fact they throw hysterics far more than lefties do. Its just that you lot actually feel really hurt when you’re on the receiving end.

Yes, there are several dedicated or near-dedicated Anti-Daily Mail/tabloid blogs (Five Chinese Crackers, Daily Mail Watch, Enemies of Reason, even SepticIsle nowadays)

With the exception of the last one, those blogs are much more single-purpose than Tim Worstall’s is.

Anyway, this is moving off-topic. It’s not “outrage” I am irritated by. It’s people like Bindel who give out the snark but can’t take it, and whinge about ‘abusive comments’ etc.

QT – Thanks; let’s see if this one works……..

BenSix – I tried that. Now everytime I post someone pops up to remind the world that I once advocated violence on a CiF thread

Hi all,

The problem I have with this argument is that it presupposes that women need protection, or that we aren’t quite up to life in the likes of CiF.

I haven’t written for CiF, but I’ve had a political website for a while and have been abused by tossers from all parts of the world. Does that really matter? Why would I need protecting, or sexist commentators shut down? Can’t I look after myself?

Etc.

Cheers,

Kate

Kate – That’s pretty much where I’m at now. When I first started I hated it, and wanted everything deleted, but now I’ve got used to it I sometimes resent all the deletions on my threads ‘cos I think it’s useful for people to see the kind of crap we have to put up with.

But it does take some getting used to – I’m guessing we’re pretty hardened to it ‘cos we’ve spent years in trade union meetings and in other political activity, so we’re used to passionate debate and a bit of abuse; but for people who haven’t got that kind of background it must be pretty shocking……..

But also there’s the question of whether CiF wants the site to be taken over by trolls, or whether they want informed debate – if it’s the latter then they have to enforce a talk policy of some sort, just as LC has done. It’s not necessarily about protecting the author, but about discouraging crap that does nothing to further discussions.

“BenSix – I tried that. Now everytime I post someone pops up to remind the world that I once advocated violence on a CiF thread ”

Ah, sorry.

*Retreats into the shadows*

Fair points, Cath. I am just a little touchy when it comes to what I think of the two great myths of female political blogging – the first myth being that there are no political bloggers, and the second one being that women don’t blog on politics because they can’t take the heat.

It’s my view that there are quite a few of us out here, and that we’re writing to quite a high standard of finish – you’re writing for CiF, and I have contributed to the New Statesman on the strength of my website (Martin Bright approached me after he’d read it). I wonder if those who claim that there are few or no female political bloggers just haven’t looked around properly. They hear that Guido and Iain Dale dominate blogging and assume that’s it. Or something.

Apologies if I posted this twice. Did something weird with my keyboard just now when Poland scored.

Kate – I agree, and I also think there’s a danger that women bloggers get marginalised ‘cos a lot of the better known ones like Jessica Valenti blog about ‘women’s issues’ or feminism and steer clear of some of the wider political stuff. I know I’m guilty of this at times, but I’ve begun to cover a wider range of subjects recently, ‘cos I don’t necessarily want to be ghettoised as ‘just another feminist blogger.’ Feminism is hugely important to me, yes, but it’s not all that I’m about, if that makes sense. I suspect I’m rambling, but I know what I’m trying to say

Kate @16 and 19
In addition to Cath’s point, I’d also add that having a low tolerance for abuse and hate speech on comments is important for other readers and not just the author (whether a woman or not).

I’m surprised that you would say something like ‘can’t I take care of myself’ as if the active policing of violent/abusive comments is somehow a comment on your abilities or strength as an author. I actually think *that* plays into the idea that ‘women are weak’, instead of recognizing that abusive comments have no place on blogs, full stop. It’s a defensive reaction that plays into the stereotype.

It seems to me that the mark of a high quality site would be that the level of debate is such that personal attacks are eliminated or completely marginalized, whether directed at the author, other commenters, or random groups of people more generally (e.g. ‘migrants’ or whatever).

My take on the guardian talk here: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/06/the_notorious_c