As commenting online has become more frequent, it has also become more of a two-sided argument, questioning the influence people should be allowed to have online.

The practice of online commenting has always been viewed positively as a method for connecting people and generating productive conversations. However, with the amount of “trolls” online –– people who write provocative material hoping to instigate an emotional response –– the perception of posting online is shifting.

PopularScience.com, the online outlet of the 141-year-old science and technology magazine has finally had enough. About a week ago, the website decided that people were no longer allowed to comment on its articles.

Popular Science said, “comments can be bad for science,” thus prompting this new commenting policy. They then proceeded to cite a University of Wisconsin-Madison study that suggested online comments change the way a person construes a news story.

While many op-eds from a variety of media outlets like Slate.com have criticized Popular Science’s decision, it is important to look at some of the problems the world of online commenting is currently experiencing.

Online commenting has allowed people to amplify their opinions without the fear of public speaking. It is common to see people who comment every five minutes on Facebook, but do not say a word in public.

When people are in public, say a classroom setting, they experience the fear of judgment; they do not want to look stupid or foolish in front of others. While this feeling is often one of insecurity, it usually forces people to think before they speak.

But with online commenting, people can avoid the fear of judgment altogether. As a result, people comment online without any sort of filter.

A 2013 Pew Research Center survey revealed that 25 percent of adult users online posted a comment without showing their true identity, 26 percent said they used a temporary e-mail address or username and 36 percent had neglected a website when it required their real name.

Furthermore, the comments being posted are not only misleading, but also in some cases out of line. For instance, Lisa Davis, a blogger on Alternet.org, shared her frustrating experiences with “Trolls” during her time as a writer for a Brooklyn Real Estate blog.

One specific comment that appeared in one of her real estate posts even went as far to say, “I know where you live and I’m coming for you and your family.”

Why should an innocent blogger have to deal with life threatening and obscene comments that are not protected under free speech?

While it is impossible to answer this question, one might argue it is equally as hard to overlook the positive impact online commenting has made on journalism.

Online commenting is important because it can provide writers feedback about their work. The comments provide information about opposing opinions, factual errors and overall effectiveness of an article. In doing so, online comments create a flow of ideas and spark innovation.

The issue of online commenting has strong support on both sides. However, Google may have found a happy medium. Just recently, they announced that the YouTube commenting system will now be powered by Google+.

This means that comments you care about will rise to the top and users will be able to control which comments they see. Also, better moderating tools will be available such as having the ability to block certain words from comments.

This forward-thinking solution from Google comes at a perfect time for the controversial issue. It will act as a guardian blocking “Trolls” from using their content for evil, yet still encouraging people to post comments that contribute positively.

Bram Berkowitz is a senior advertising and entrepreneurship and emerging enterprises major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at [email protected].

Published on October 3, 2013 at 2:31 am