Newspapers like trolls

OK, so this is not a well thought-out hypothesis and if you prodded a little I’d probably admit that I do not believe in this, but still: newspapers adore trolls.

Here’s what I observed. In the early days of letting people comment online underneath newspaper articles (was this when the papers feared they had to compete with blogs?), a lot of the time you could respond pseudonymously. Then after some time the papers would force you to register and log in. They said this was to stem the tide of trolls. Except this can hardly be true; trolls play a bigger part in online newspaper comment sections than ever before.

Maybe, you’ll say, this is just human nature. Maybe everybody acts like a pig when they can hide behind a mask. The thing is, I know enough blogs that run a tight ship in their comments sections, making sure discussions stay on topic and insult-free. Unlike the aforementioned newspapers these blogs are run by amateurs with much less disposable time.

Your second argument could be that just because newspapers haven’t figured out how to stop trolls, doesn’t mean they like them. So I need a second hypothesis to answer this: newspapers benefit from trolls (and that is why they like them). If you have trolls, it means you are going to get angry retorts. Trolls are very effective in letting people stay longer at a newspaper’s website which in turn means that people are exposed for a longer time to newspapers’ advertisements.

Cory Doctorow says: no more inCaps!

Cory Doctorow wants to stop using weirdly spelled brand names:

This year, I resolve to minimize my use of incaps when writing about commercial products and companies. An incap changes a word into a logo, and has no place in journalism or commentary — it’s branding activity that colonizes everyday communications. It’s free advertising.

So: “Iphone,” not “iPhone” and “Paypal,” not “PayPal.”

When I was blogging for Teleread (or is it: TeleRead?) I did the same. In fact, I may have even normalized my spelling of brand names back in the 1990s when I was an editor for c’t (marvel at the irony).

At some point I gave up the practice for reasons I cannot quite remember, but it may simply have been because iPhone is actually easier to read than Iphone, and once you give up the latter it becomes increasingly difficult to defend other instances of normalized capitalization.

Doctorow has got a list of exceptions that weaken the effect he’s after, but at least it will be him who determines which companies will get freebies and which won’t.

Do we prefer our biomass as gorgeous reef or as Australians?

A footnote from Maciej Ceglowski’s post on the Australian rain forrest:

Farmers and fishermen in Australia test the limits of human empathy. While I was in Cairns, for example, controversy ranged around the recent extension of the Great Barrier Reef marine park, opponents arguing that the expanded ban on fishing would harm the Cairns fishing industry, and proponents arguing that that was the whole goddamn point. If it were up to Australian farmers and fishermen, the Great Barrier Reef would be processed into bags of fish meal, the fish meal spread as fertilizer on land obtained by clearing the remaining rainforest, the fertilized land used to grow sugar, and the sugar used as raw material for some of the least appetizing desserts in the world. The fundamental question is this: do we prefer our biomass in the form of gorgeous reef and rain forest ecosystems, or Australians?

Athletes and the gay-hating Russian Olympics

Imagine you and some friends went to the best club in town and the doorman said one of your friends couldn’t come in because of him being gay. You would probably all walk away. By saying that your friends are not welcome the club is also making a statement about you. Maybe some of you would return later regardless, because, hey, the best club in town!, and some of you would boycott the club until it became inclusive.

That’s sort of the position I gather many of the Olympic athletes find themselves in when they consider the persecution of gays in Russia. Except that the comparison is not as good as it could be. Now imagine that you and your friends go to the exclusive club, but this time as members of an obscure band—you’re there on invitation. Just playing at that club will ensure publicity. Even though the manager knows your lead guitarist is gay, you guys still get to play there, in front of an audience that is either completely straight or pretends to be. What would you do? What will the athletes do?

This to me makes the opening ceremony of this year’s games the most interesting part of the event. I wonder what the consequences would be for an athlete if they added a little rainbow to their attire.

(Anyway, Olympic boycotts in the past, the much publicized ones that is, have revolved not so much about what athletes thought of states but mostly about what states thought of each other, and not necessarily what a visiting state though about the organizing state either. In 1956 the Dutch Olympic Committee boycotted the Australian Games not because of what Australia had done but, get this, because of the situation in Hungary.)