All Comments Are Not Equal

Popular Science, one of the leading science magazines in the world, has decided to shut off reader comments. The site’s online content editor, Suzanne LaBarre, explained the rationale behind the move in a letter she posted on the website on September 24, 2013. “It wasn’t a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.”

The move has drawn mixed reactions. Washington Post carried a piece by columnist Alexandra Petri applauding Popular Science’s decision. “Gene Weingarten once noted that getting a news article along with comments was like ordering a steak and getting a side of maggots. This has always approximated my feelings on them”, she wrote.

Guardian carried an article that mentioned the Popular Science decision and reactions to it, which Guardian described as “mixed”. Apart from Petri’s piece, it mentioned one that asked why Popular Science did not try to fix comments instead of killing them. The article went on to look at what other organisations such as Huffington Post are doing to deal with trolling. Huff Post proposes to ask new users to verify their identity, Guardian reported.

All of this is certainly interesting and important. My comment on it is that it ought to make us in the media think about the issue in depth.

There are some ideas that have spread around the world in recent years. The idea of freedom of speech is one. It is widely assumed now that everyone has to have an opinion on everything – and is free to air their opinions.

There is also a sense of great democracy and equality in the expression of opinions. So, for example, I recently noticed Professor Ramachandra Guha being subjected to rude retorts on Twitter. They sounded like trolls, or ignorant fools by another name, but they were not shy to express themselves.

They probably found the confidence to go about trolling an intellectual giant for two reasons. One is anonymity: they were hiding behind assumed names. The second is because these days, it is somehow considered wrong to pass judgment on anyone’s opinions, no matter how stupid. “Are you judging me?” is a popular question, and the correct answer is always meant to be “no”. To judge is considered wrong.

In its note announcing the end of comments on its website, Popular Science mentioned that, “A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to ‘debate’ on television”.

In other words, what ought to be matters of reason and scientific inquiry have slipped once more into questions of belief: Do you believe in evolution? Or climate change? If your view, whatever it is, happens to be the majority view or have political backing, it will carry the day.

Popular Science’s editor’s reference to evolution and climate change may have been prompted by attempts to ban or otherwise undermine the teaching of the theory of evolution in American schools, which have been on for around 100 years now. The attempts have not ceased; in fact, they are becoming successful. Only last year, the state of Tennessee passed a law to include teaching of “weaknesses” of evolution and climate science in schools, which would open the doors for teaching alternative theories such as the one that says God created the world in six days. It was one of six American states to introduce such laws in their state legislatures.

India is in a slightly better place in this regard, but not due to any genius on the part of its legislators or its populace. If you see the standard of comments made by politicians, both on and off Twitter, it becomes clear that we are unlikely to be deficient in the number of regressive nitwits.

Usually, this becomes the subject of media comment in India on questions related to rape and the kinds of clothes women should wear. Then our religious and political leaders show their true colours. We are not seeing stupid comments about evolution and climate change because those are not issues being debated here.

Popular Science is right to say that everything cannot be decided by television debates. Truth in science is not a matter of opinions.

All of human civilisation is due to the intellectual advances of a tiny minority. The law of gravitation was an idea in one man’s head. It was not a law passed by Parliament. In fact, it is safe to say that no parliament on earth would have passed such a law. It went against the majority view at the time. It would be too unpopular and controversial and, therefore, politically unfeasible.

Numbers are no measure of truth, or even of quality. Just because a certain kind of book or film sells more, does not mean it is better. In fact, it probably means that it is average, and therefore appeals to the average person. For example, the film Grand Masti is apparently on its way to doing Rs 100 crore in business. That does not indicate that it is a great film – it indicates that the average intellect in our country is rather low.

To make such a statement is to be judgmental. For a number of reasons, I believe it is important for liberals to be so. This is because while extremists in every society have no problems being judgmental, the liberals are full of doubt. They have internalised some forms of moral relativism. For creationists in America or the Taliban in Pakistan or Hindutva trolls here, there are no doubts.

Liberal values cannot be upheld unless those who claim to subscribe to it have clarity of thought and strength of conviction. Free speech, democracy and egalitarian ideals are certainly to be practiced – and defended. What is to be attacked are views that are plain incorrect, or harmful, or both.

For example, I’ve come across debates on online forums where the question of whether it is Islamic for the earth to revolve around the sun continues to be hotly debated. I would say I’ll back whichever theory can put a communication satellite into space.

Allowing the teaching of regressive medieval theories is not liberalism. It is an unnecessary encouragement of fundamentalism. Liberals should remember that asserting the truth is different from asserting an opinion. In cases where the truth of a claim has been clearly validated, such as the claim saying the earth revolves around the sun, there is no liberal justification for allowing innocent children to be indoctrinated with incorrect and outdated worldviews.

The media ought to establish strongly that there is no room for such kinds of views, including in the social sphere. For example, Asaram Bapu’s views on rape and the Taliban’s on pretty much everything to do with women – do not deserve space. After all, we do not give space to Nazi-views any more.

All views are not equal. There are some views that are qualitatively better than others. The question of what is better should be open to debate, but it has to be a debate that is informed and intelligent.   People can say what they want, but everything they say need not be given space. Media has to uphold editorial standards, and those standards ought to extend to comments on their websites. Comments should either be of the same quality as the articles they are in response to, or higher, and they must not be anonymous. There is no value being added by publishing silly or vituperative anonymous remarks at the end of a thoughtful piece.

The writer is author of The Urban Jungle (Penguin, 2011) and Consulting Editor with The Asian Age, Mumbai. These are his personal views