Drive-by Shooters, Flamers, Trolls, and the online Press

Hello reader, First off, I would like to say that this is not a rant against any of them. I would quite simply like to elicit the views of readers, in a civil manner, as to why journalism sites permit, or do not permit, their presence on their pages. Before continuing, it may be worth defining what the terms Drive-by Shooters, Flamers, and Trolls mean, if only for anyone who isn’t sure, although I readily admit that there are no hard and fast rules here, and would welcome other ideas. Some people may deny that they even exist. That’s fair enough. Those who deny their existence are often one of them, or have been designated as being one of them by others, including myself, and I am very well aware that some people call people one or other of those names in the context of ad hominem attacks. Right. That's the being fair and balanced bit over. I do think they do exist however, and so do many other people, so, before discussing why they are present, who are they? In general terms they are people with no real names, no pictures of themselves, no personal details, and they almost never contribute content to the sites they visit. They almost never use humour, and they seek only to bring someone, or their opinions, down. The least offensive and disruptive of this motley group is the, Drive-by Shooter. Also known as Hit-and-Run posters, they are people who enter an Internet forum or press article uniquely in order to post an inflammatory comment about the issue being discussed, the writer, or other commenters. Their comment (sometimes more than one) may confine itself to the issue, and sometimes it consists of personal insults. They have in common, however, that they disappear as quickly as they arrived, and that’s it. Next up are, Flamers. They are a little more troublesome. A Flamer often tries to generate and elicit hostile response, but they contribute regularly to a given site. They target the opinions of a particular issue, article, or person, and post regular attacks on the content of what their target says. They may be genuinely interested in the subject and just want to establish their intellectual superiority over others (as they see it) or they may use the subject to introduce an off-subject topic. For example an article on the new design of a ten-dollar bill may be used as a frontal assault on capitalism. They are capable of posting enormous amounts of comments on a post in an attempt to kill it off. They are also fond of posting links to articles and videos that support their points of view. In the main though, they restrain from personal insult. The most disruptive elements however, are Trolls A Troll is someone who wilfully offends and insults others. They are like Flamers who have been ‘Promoted.’ They have no opinions on the issue being discussed, and they just look to denigrate or insult either the writer or commenters, or the site on which they are commenting. They rarely put up links to other sources because they are uniquely interested in attacking the person, not the issue. References to their target’s supposed ignorance and inflammatory comment on an individual person’s personal background, race or colour are often to be seen. They visit many posts on a given site, the common thread being the person who wrote it or the presence of a perceived enemy who is involved in discussion on the post concerned. They are often ignorant of the content of a discussion, contenting themselves with trying to provoke discord within the whole of the article, or even the site itself. Trolls often target a whole site’s credibility via its members. So, that’s who they are. Why am I writing this? Because I happen to have a little ‘following,’ people from France and elsewhere in the world. They are present here either as people who have a bio-profile, or just as ‘Anons.’ They visit my work, and from there they go on to the work of other writers. Two of those people publish or print my articles on their Facebook pages, as well as those of others. However, in the last three weeks, I have received email from seven of those people who are asking how it is possible that this kind of presence is tolerated on what is supposed to be a serious news site. They are quite simply horrified to see the amount of those mentioned above and their disruptive contributions. My button was finally pushed though when someone told me that they were considering contributing to this site but decided against it given the amount of negativity on it. I had recommended this site to that person and felt very bad about it. And I am sure that that person is not alone. Many people must have visited the site to look around and see if it was a site where they could write without being insulted and flamed, saw what happens, and closed the window. The mainstream press has almost unanimously decided to either filter comment or delete what they consider to be unsuitable when they find it. Citizen journalist sites, on the other hand, all have what they call a “Code of Conduct," but almost none of them enforce it. Some sites give First Amendment type reasons, others, like DJ, give block options, and others still give writers the option of deleting what they consider to be offensive comment. But they almost all permit it, and it is there for the world to read. I would like to know why, because, although I am not an expert on what makes an Internet site tick, I consider that it is not conducive to attracting new members. Anyone visiting some articles here would think it was a lunatic asylum!! My question is simple. “What intellectual, moral, commercial or journalistic advantages do Citizen Journalist sites see in permitting Drive-Bys, Flamers, and Trolls to contribute to their content?” Thanks for reading.