[Update on 7 Feb 2025: Added a bit more detail concerning the term 'heedfulness', with a link to my research.]
I offer some initial thoughts for a novel service, a kind of overarching comment system for news media across the world.
First, we need some background.
Then we can introduce our intentions for the service.
A narrowing field
Ever since news organisations started publishing on the Web over 20 years ago, their current affairs content has steadily grown from front page headlines and news bulletins to in-depth articles and features, ranging from local to international affairs. Nowadays, with digital editions having largely overtaken print-based media, the majority of their output and subscribers are online.
Opportunities were soon identified for reader contributions through feedback mechanisms, discussion fora and online communities, following a practice that was established before the arrival of the Web with various Internet services such as bulletin board systems (BBS), Listservs and UseNet newsgroups. Eventually, news media organisations provided opportunities as part of their Web presence. Hence, the BBC’s Have Your Say and The Guardian’s Comment is Free, which allowed members of the public to share their views on a variety of topical issues.
The Guardian usefully provides various entry points to their conversations, including an index of themes. Although it was last updated in 2013, it still links to a list of current articles on the given theme, such as Christianity. However, relatively few articles have a comments count, whereas clicking on the same link 11 or 12 years ago (archived), reveals a page where almost every article has comment counts.
This reflects a general pattern. In recent years, the number of articles open for comment has dwindled as has the visibility of comments — in some cases, only succinct emails are solicited. The media companies have become more selective, increasingly erring on the side of caution, particularly on matters that they regard as sensitive (to whom, is not always clear).
And this change has been noticed:
(Google's auto-complete suggestions on entering a search about The Guardian's service draw on existing usage patterns.)
Feelings of Discomfort as signs of Opportunities
Why the change? The inclination towards closure became increasingly expressed as more people joined in the conversation. Whilst at the first glance this was democracy in action, it also — to some — led to an unacceptable decrease in overall quality. Such a sentiment was expressed in 2015 by a journalist in The Guardian, who describes feeling under attack, where odious comments become prominent and worthwhile contributions become buried. Yet, as the article hints, avoidance can mean missing out on something valuable. And the issue of quality is not a new phenomenon: I recall a contributor to a Usenet group confiding to me in around 1995 that he was disinclined to post further because the signal-to-noise ratio had become too low, but he still continued to make contributions where there was something of interest.
Having forbearance can be worthwhile. Especially with newcomers. It did not take me long to get into a bit of hot water, receiving a couple of angry responses following my first Usenet posting (on ‘Quantum Theory and Meditation’). In hindsight, I was naive and not following good practice: the choice of topic (too ambitious), the way I expressed myself (perhaps dismissive in tone) and the use of markdown (what?!). Altogether probably injudicious. Within two days the first irate message appeared in my Inbox, “No! No! No! … ” , quite a sobering experience. Yet, I never intended to offend and, undeterred, I persevered in trying to understand and to articulate my point. The thread continued, gaining some further interest, others extended the conversation and I was happy to see it develop freely. I became on friendly terms with several participants and along the way received glimpses of the life of an atomic physicist working in a laboratory. Although I had got bitten, I found the experience valuable. Viewed as opportunities to learn, it is worth persevering with such situations and seeking to improve one’s conduct. Potentially everyone can benefit.
The problem with quality on the Web today is in large part due to the user interface, where the design is often optimised for ease of use. Following Steve Krug’s influential work, Don’t Make Me Think, Web designers have made it a trivial process to enter one’s thoughts in a box and hit the [Send] — the interfaces are slick, as in oil slick, with words potentially gushing forth without due consideration.
Freedom of Expression and the Right to be Heard
Much is made, especially in the West, of the right to freedom of expression, as declared in Article 19 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(English language version; many other languages available via the the translation project.)
However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights added a limiting clause to Article 19 (1966):
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Who decides what is necessary? What is really in the national interest? These clauses are open to varying interpretation, but in general there is a spectrum of views from those who declare themselves to be ‘free speech absolutists’ to others who would like it closely controlled.
In trying to foster appropriate contributions to Comment is Free, The Guardian weighs in with a quote from a former editor and owner of the Manchester Guardian, C.P. Scott, taken from his centenary essay:
“Comment is free, but facts are sacred.”
The subclause is heavily leaned upon as a restraint, but in reality it may not be a straightforward matter to establish those facts and what may be promulgated as such can sometimes fade away (consider, for example, the origins of the Covid-19 virus). However, it is soon followed by another sentence that also merits quoting:
“The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard."
This becomes more urgent in a society that has an increasing tendency to see complex situations in simplistic terms as black and white, which often creates or reinforces division. In that contentious area of ‘freedom of speech’, it is evident is that many people find it very hard to listen to other points of view and to discuss them with an open mind.
Balance and Impartiality
Some media outlets have maintained comment sections across a broad spectrum of topics and taken a relatively liberal position in terms of allowing critical views. To enable this they still maintain oversight and will promptly delete comments regarded as falling foul of their community guidelines. They often requiring participants to have a paid subscription. One example is the Daily Telegraph, which provides conversation space for perhaps the majority of their articles, with journalists occasionally joining in for a kind of real-time Q&A.
Yet, even there, certain topics or people still seem out of bounds, which cannot be explained by the fulfilment of legal obligations alone. So the spotlight is turned on networks and relationships, particularly those of a financial nature — who are the sponsors and what do they have to gain? The Daily Telegraph Global Health Security is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Can the paper really retain full editorial independence on matters relating to health and the pharmaceutical industry?
Cases of vaccine harms emerged as soon as they were issued: UK CV Family, which has long-known about problems, was granted core participant status in module 4 of the UK's Covid-19 Public Inquiry in 2023, but had been reporting problems the year before with mRNA-based vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, as well as AstraZeneca's viral vector vaccine . However, they only get mentioned by the Telegraph in 2024, and the article itself confines itself to AstraZeneca, after they had left the market. Gradual acceptance of Covid-19 vaccine harms and their seriousness is belatedly emerging: ‘The truth about Covid vaccines may finally be coming to light’, but the article is brief and comments conflict markedly with its general direction. Similarly, an investigation by a former Government minister has again focused solely on AstraZeneca. Newspapers are expected to investigate, to reveal different sides of the story, but have fallen short with this virus. It brings to mind the old adage, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
Many comments have made points to this effect, but for media that are supposedly on the pulse, the response on matters like this has been glacial. It tends to shift faster the more such valid data, properly established, become common knowledge. Providing a global forum for the public to share their responses and insights can help with this process.
Acknowledging and working with diverse views
The Internet has doubtless assisted many people in freedom of expression. However, it is generally recognised that there is increasing polarisation of views, fostering growing anxiety and talk of the need for more constraints (usually of others). Differences are evident in the political views expressed in the editorials of The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian, but are even more pronounced among their readers, who appear to form distinct camps. Attitudes to other points of view are often derogatory and dismissive (“LOL”); some [im]posters seize the opportunity to engage in trolling, searching for places to score points, often using language designed to upset. There’s little benefit in the short term and probably negative effects in the long term.
This dynamic is nothing new, but one can rise above it.
Or he might say: 'Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on the food offered by the faithful, engage in wrangling argumentation, (saying to one another): "You don't understand this doctrine and discipline. I am the one who understands this doctrine and discipline." — "How can you understand this doctrine and discipline?" — "You're practising the wrong way. I'm practising the right way." — "I'm being consistent. You're inconsistent." — "What should have been said first you said last, what should have been said last you said first." — "What you took so long to think out has been confuted." — "Your doctrine has been refuted. You're defeated. Go, try to save your doctrine, or disentangle yourself now if you can" — the recluse Gotama abstains from such wrangling argumentation.'
Brahmajāla Sutta (the All-embracing Net of Views), Digha Nikaya (Long Discourses of the Buddha) number 1, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi
This quote describes the behaviour of spiritual wanderers 2,500 years ago. Today, across all walks of life, there are still these same futile patterns of argumentation, which brings the weariness that we’ve already indicated. However, the Buddha spent much of his time giving teachings, being engaged in conversation, in which he makes a valid case, draws on solid evidence and develops sound lines of reasoning. So, in that spirit, we can try to foster healthy, constructive discussion.
In fact, a proportion of readers cross over and subscribe to other papers of different hues and contribute comments there. There is great potential in this scenario. I remember being told about a reader with an avid interest in current affairs who regarded himself as a liberal, naturally inclined to The Guardian. However, he regularly read the Daily Telegraph to seek out other points of view and developed an appreciation of its “cosy” perspective without a fundamental shift in his views. He sounds like the kind of person able to enter dialogue with a relaxed openness that I would like to foster online.
The potential of collective support is also worth noting. In 1999, I attended a remarkable session of the annual conference of the International Interfaith Centre, Facing The Past – Freeing the Future — in which there was a wary dialogue between a Turkish Cypriot and a Greek Cypriot, both honed in arguing for their respective opposing positions. The audience, for a long time without speaking, tried to support them, willing them on to seek cooperation rather than confrontation.
At the last minute, as recorded by David Craig for the IIC Newsletter 11, June 1999
“There was a tangible tension in the room but when Deepak Naik asked what each was going to do when he got back to his community, common ground had been found: each would tell the young people in his island group that the other side wanted peace, and co existence and an end to division.”
Sources
News media often omit citing primary sources, seemingly content to receive information by word of mouth, in press briefings, though a fairly recent trend has been to embrace ‘fact checkers’ to ostensibly give definitive answers. As to why this is the case, there has (of course!) been some discussion with suggestions that the Internet’s disruptive nature is difficult for them to handle.
From my experience, whereas the BBC makes reference to primary sources in some of its articles (with clear disclaimers, as it sees fit), I have found the Daily Telegraph hardly does so. Articles seldom contain a dedicated reference section (which might be expected at the foot of the article) and linked text that sounds like it should point to a source (such as “according to a recently released report”) usually leads instead to another Telegraph article, effectively a kind of clickbait. That might boost the service’s analytics and aid monetisation in the short term, but when repeated, I am put off.
With trust ebbing away from mainstream media, access to primary sources really ought to be given priority.
Outline of a Proposal
Here’s my idea. I propose Be Free to Comment — Heedfully, a new service reflecting the primary intention of freedom of expression conducted in an appropriate manner. It’s a working title to capture what it’s about. By ‘heedful’ I have in mind the Pali Buddhist term appamāda, a notion I have researched in relation to the Fifth Precept, concerning the avoidance of intoxicants. The heedfulness is self-directed, keeping in mind the consequences of one's actions, and should be in reference to 5-star speech, which is described below.
The service acts as a meta discussion area in which — subject to legal compliance in respective jurisdictions — each article of a mainstream newspaper has an accompanying discussion area with a link to the original source (which is automatically archived, for example, by the Wayback Machine). Where access to articles is restricted, for example, by requiring a subscription, a paragraph summary of the item is created as a basis for a broader discussion of the topic as a whole.
This is just an outline to indicate my approach.
Which Sources?
Following a well-established process, considering how the largest social media have evolved, the service should start on a small scale and be expanded gradually.
So, it might begin in the UK, with a few national newspapers and long-established broadcasters. Candidate sources include (in alphabetical order): the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, the Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, The Observer, The Sun, The Telegraph, and The Times. There may follow a horizontal expansion (across the UK) or vertical (across the world). Whichever way is chosen, the intention is to include ‘alternative’ sources, which enhances their visibility and therefore their scrutiny.
The articles themselves can initially be confined to certain topics. One possibility is to choose those where opportunities for comments are sparse. However, these are likely to be the most controversial topics, the most difficult to handle well. A fledgling service should start with easier fare, build up experience and confidence, and then expand in a measured way to take in more challenging areas.
News Access
The system will use a database to store basic details of each news item: the publication (source), URL, title, date, author, type (bulletin, feature, etc.), keywords, comments status (open, moderated, email, closed, etc.) and access details. The design can follow conventions established by news aggregators sites and apps, of which there is a large choice. (Note that Reddit has news aggregator functionality, but it’s more general than that.)
There should be search and browse facilities to quickly find specific items and items on a particular topic or theme. Insights may be gleaned from news coverage as a whole. So, we can find answers to questions such as: What proportion of articles on climate change are open to comments?
Machine can use techniques in natural language processing (NLP) to carry out topic analysis and sentiment analysis.
Participation
There are many successful online communities, ranging from Meta’s offerings of Facebook groups and WhatsApp to Reddit and Stack Exchange. These last two are both distributed question-and-answer (Q&A) systems, but whereas Reddit encourages subjective contributions, Stack Exchange is not interested in opinions, but objective solutions. As with Stack Exchange's history, many started out as programmers’ hobbies and extra-curricular activities, but subsequently the user base has grown and diversified, with the subject coverage becoming encyclopaedic. The experience gained in these kinds of communities should inform service design, whilst I also wish to introduce a Buddhist perspective, as I believe this is rooted in a deep understanding of behaviour in human interactions.
Following general practice, discussion of current affairs are text-based and do not include audiovisual multimedia, only links to such content. This should be easier to manage.
User accounts
Should contributions require a user to be registered (with minimal personal data: first and last name for identification, a forum username and an email address)? Perhaps the option of anonymous comments might be supported, albeit with additional constraints (as per The Register’s Anonymous Coward).
Bots are not allowed (and don’t try to impersonate one and say “Did you come here because you are irritated? Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.”)
Guidelines based on the Buddha’s teaching on speech
The main guidance on contribution would be ‘Five Star Speech’, a direct appropriation of the Buddha’s teachings where one contributes:
- truthfully
- in a mind of good will
- expressed in a kind manner
- something relevant and beneficial to the recipient
- at the right time.
Vāca Sutta (On Speech), Anguttara Nikaya (Numerical Discourses of the Buddha) number 5.98, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
These are not rules, but users are strongly encouraged to try to contribute along these lines as far as possible as it will enhance the overall experience and make it easier to adhere to the actual rules. These will be in the terms of service, which will be along existing lines and may borrow from those that already exist for social media.
Moderation
This is the main requirement of managing the service and for its basis, I quote again from the Buddha:
Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
Nibbedhika Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya (Numerical Discourses of the Buddha) number 6.63, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
In Buddhism, actions in body, speech and mind, termed in Sanskrit karma, sow the seeds of happiness and unhappiness. When comments are laced with ill feeling and hatred; we refer to it as hateful speech. The words that result from hatefulness might be termed hate speechem> but need to be contextualised since the same words expressed in other contexts, with a benevolent mind, are entirely different in nature. This means that more effort is needed to ensure that contributions are appropriate, which we will address below.
Requiring users to register has some positive impact in terms of self-restraint, but is not sufficient. Skilful moderation is key to the viability of any such service, maintaining its civility. I envisage a combination of manual oversight supported by automated monitoring, with the adoption of some existing best practices, but with more focus on the nature of speech.
There are many facets to this, so, just as an example, monitoring should spot trolling patterns and then advise (with evidence) the poster to review their contributions.
Human moderators
Who should moderate? What should the criteria be? Essentially those who understand, uphold and encourage the principles of well-informed and kindly dialogue in the context of online discussions of current affairs.
The kind of scenario they would deal with would be a subscriber email or automated notification that one or more posts in a particular thread has crossed a ‘bad speech’ threshold. Their role is then to pay closer attention to that discussion, using their experience to facilitate it in a way that keeps it on topic and generally in accordance with 5-star speech. Mindful of the controversy concerning editorial practice at Wikipedia, expressed by its co-founder, Larry Sanger, for example, in an interview with UnHerd, I feel special care is needed to avoid and mitigate bias as far as possible.
So, the kind of person I would like to largely carry out this role is not someone with expertise or strong views on the topic, but rather someone who is a good listener and discerning in human interactions. A service that brings together people who are potentially at opposite ends needs very skilful support. So who is qualified for such facilitation? I have in mind experienced practitioners of Nonviolent Communication, a practice developed by Marshall Rosenberg to solve problems through communication rooted in empathy. Ideally, when problems arise, they enter into a dialogue with the poster, but it depends on resourcing.
Whilst they might not by themselves be able to determine the pertinence of an argument, the truth of a statement or validity of evidence put forward, they are trained in techniques to facilitate that process. Suppose that someone keeps insisting on an assertion, but complaints are received claiming that the assertion is false. What then? The original poster may be invited to clarify, but at this point some authority in the subject matter might be called upon to arbitrate. If no resolution is found, then what kind of closure is appropriate? Closing the thread? Or, as a general measure, limiting the number of posts to a given thread? Whilst wikis can descend into edit wars, in these fora, one can only edit one’s own posts. Some ‘hot topic’ or ‘contested’ flag might be raised.
There ought to be some kind of rewards system as well for those who have made substantial and highly regarded contributions. These might include badges and free newspaper subscriptions.
The use of automation to support moderation
We can enable the sites to be self-moderating to some degree through the use of devices such as a reputation system, commonly indicated by ‘likes’; in Stack Exchange, users largely determine this by indicating support for or approval of posts by others.
However, to aid efficiency and to improve coverage, automated moderation should be deployed, running in the background. Just as topic analysis and sentiment analysis can be used to give an overview, so it can also be used to discern problematic posts such as the trolling already mentioned. Algorithms can fulfil many assistive functions such as automatically grading topics for sensitivity, to give a quick overview, refined with human guidance.
At this point, a note about artificial intelligence (AI). The meaning of AI has narrowed to be, in many people’s minds, synonymous with machine learning, with the emphasis on machine capability. In contrast, I give centrality to the paradigm of Augmenting Human Intellect, as conceived by Douglas Engelbart in his report for Stanford Research Institute in 1962. This approach, as exemplified by his ‘Mother of all demos’, emphasizes the potential of machines to help us do things better and more efficiently.
The actual methods used should also be given careful consideration — I would prefer to avoid the use of ‘black box’ methods such as neural networks wherever possible, especially for reasons of transparency.
Management of Sources
The system should collate, store and readily make available metadata about the original articles, so that visitors to the site know their provenance. Ideally, each one should be archived in more than one way, including on the Wayback Machine at Internet Archive. The sources typically depend in turn on other sources, so there is scope for web crawlers, with many possible foci, such as exploring dependencies of thought.
Discussions, will bring up further sources. So, contributions should be mined also, building up a knowledge base available for analysis. This knowledge can be made available in various ways through the user interface and programmatically through APIs. For example, each article can have a tab that summarises the sources mentioned, perhaps with weightings, though that needs to be robust against gaming the system.
System Architecture
I’ve hardly given any thought to this as I’ve only been pondering what the service might look like. However, one aspect that particularly interests me is the potential for a distributed architecture. So, I would like to explore further Bluesky’s decentralised approach, as discussed in less technical terms in The Pragmatic Engineer.
Conclusion
So there it is. An idea, a tentative proposal, which, I hope, will give fresh impetus to commentary on current affairs, facilitating a fresh dialogue among and between people of differing views. A service for individuals, citizens of the world, that might even help in resurrecting ‘What the papers say‘, last seen at the BBC.
I’d like it to be turned into a business case. I’m not the best person to do this, but I can see how it might be of professional benefit to many parties: it should drive traffic to news sources and various professionals will find it a valuable repository for public opinion.
I’ll just add that an important consideration is how to maintain the service’s independence and protect it from undue influence (in the spirit of the declaration on freedom of expression). Policy statements are just one aspect. To increase its chances of longevity, the funding needs to be well spread and, when implemented, the moderation principles to be firmly maintained, true to the original intention.
