There’s only one thing you can really honestly do about it, and that’s not let it get to you (especially not visibly).
These are like the bullies on they playground. They probably don’t even read the columns, they certainly don’t actually know anything about you or your material. They are posting just hoping to get a rise out of you and your commenters. They get a rise out of it.

And I’ll keep using the ‘report this comment’ function quietly and hope they moderate the comments out, but even with moderators, the trolls always find a way. Frankly, I pity them, that this is their big thrill in life.

Are they on http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/company/info/staff/ ?

I have a question: there were a couple of comments that were deleted, with a note saying they breached SF Gate terms and conditions. Which terms and conditions are these? Apparently they have some “limit” but not one that protects its writers.

Haven’t read the Gate until today (I live in Perth, Western Australia, so I’m not reeealy in their demographic) but your post moved to.

I agree with your stance on this, I am often shocked on many of our local online news sites at the hurtful and often incorrect garbage allowed to be spilled. Despite repeatedly seeing the same commenters able to troll time and time again, I have been banned from commenting on any page linked to our main national news blog because I firstly posted a response noting a article stating that a girl who had died after being given the cervical cancer vaccine died of an underlying health condition, not the vaccination, in response to a large anti-vaccination movement, and asking another commenter responding to an article about public funding for IVF why she felt she was more entitled to public funds than same sex couples.

I often think the filtering of posts is done to move comments the direction the moderators wish, which is why trolls are left to draw more attention to posts, and people with legitimate comments are booted off for lowering the mood.

(P.S. excuse my gush, <3 your blog)

don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

the evidence =
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/shookdown/2009/07/ugly_truth_director_rob_luketi.php#comment-4340047

I admit I have had some very dark personal moments with those comments; but I am still here. to me, those comments have come to represent our online culture’s new form of reckless, volatile, harmful and negligent behavior from media entities who have the power to behave responsibly — but do not. somewhere, I hope some good comes of this.

and @Kiala — I’m not sure who you’re asking but if you’re asking me personally I have two policies. one is that I allow anonymous comments on my blogs and various outlets because of the reasons stated by “#17 Anonymous” above, and because I believe sexual privacy is the cornerstone of sexual freedom (and personal safety in some cases). and two, I do not comment anonymously anywhere. it’s my preference. also, I know that people with the right skills can peel back the layers of web anonymity with relative ease — you have to be *really good at it* to truly be anonymous online. but moreso, I want people to know it’s me commenting, and doing what I do with sex ed and cultural criticism, I have strong value sets around transparency, accountability and the importance of putting a face on my beliefs about sexuality and humanity. I’ll be that face, because I know many other people can’t.

As has been written many times before: studies have shown that there is a significant disinhibiting effect when commenting online. The result is poisonous to substantive discussion of controversial topics. If people want to allow anonymous contributions, they really should be moderated.

Anonymous comments are necessary in that, you shape frank and honest discussions on topics that most people haven’t had frank and honest discussions about. More than that, most people have been shamed away from the honesty of sex in our repressive culture. Until they’re more comfortable with their own sexuality, anonymous comments are necessary to make people feel comfortable enough to contribute, in my opinion.

With all of that said, however, comments of ALL types should be moderated for appropriateness. People can hide behind fake email accounts and fake names just as easily as anonymous comments. The problem with that is most people don’t understand the weight of their words or the consequences in using them. It’s not okay to attack someone verbally, because you don’t agree with them. In a public setting, your verbal confrontations often leads to other people witnessing those attacks as thinking that they can go one step further. That leads to violence more often than not.

More importantly, though, Violet, is the fact that you are a strong, opinionated, and honest woman. While I hope that your (hopeful) appearance on a legendary talk show’s stage will help take some of the hatred away from you, a bigger spotlight will only bring more crazies out of the woodwork. Try to remember that you are a talented woman, who is honest. You do so much good – more good than those that sit in judgment of you could ever conceive of in their miniscule minds. There is a price to pay for opening minds and educating people. I wish there wasn’t, and I wish I could ease that for you, because you are a good person.

I am also a writer, although I don’t do a column, and my policy has been to accept anonymous emails. Usually, they’re just people who don’t want to register, but I have found, more often than not, that most of my really unpleasant email comes from anonymous sources. I don’t have the audience Violet does, so I don’t get as much email, but I can understand all the negativity — especially since in America, anything sexual is considered evil by the masses.

All I can say, Violet, is that I’m sorry you have to put up with it. Hopefully there’s some way you can move away from the Chronicle, into an actual news outlet. Try not to let it get you down.

Pen

They’re not trying to affect you, Violet. They are entertaining Each Other, and that’s all that matters to them. They are playing to their own crowd, preaching to their own choir. And they are self-sustaining.

I abandoned message boards early on because I didn’t care for the Snark Olympics. But you’re made of sterner stuff. You put so much of yourself out there, insisting on talking about a hot-button topic–which is really the point, I think: you’re not hiding when it comes to sex, why should anyone else–and you take it until you can’t take anymore. Then you reboot, and the cycle starts all over again. Until everyone gets so good at fucking that it’s not a big deal anymore, and we attack it with as much verve and matter-of-fact-ness as our favorite meal, it’s not going to change.

Your mood may not always agree with it, but you’re our most capable warrior.

“Yet somehow, when the topic is sex, your newspaper can’t seem to locate its journalistic ethics, or even common decency.”

Common decency indeed. If Violet was writing on the subject of politics, or sports, or food, or anything else, would The Chronicle brook the sorts of behavior that goes on in the comments section of her column? I don’t think so.

Over and over again those of us who explore the topic of sexuality are forced to measure our principles against the value of column inches; we are asked to distinguish between “half a loaf is better than no loaf” situations and when we are being asked to eat shit.

Shame on The Chronicle. And good for you, Violet, for calling them out! For pushing the plate back and saying, “No, thanks.”

I’m not going to repeat what the people above said, because by and large they’re correct.

The fact of the matter is you are in the business of challenging and reshaping peoples values and beliefs. Some people don’t want their minds broadened, and moreover, don’t want you to have an influence on others. They disagree with your (our) value system, which in particular values diversity _itself_. These people place no value on the person that they percieve to be you, and some of them even “hate” the fact that people like you (us) exist.

In my experience (which comes from dealing with racism), people need to accept that as a fact, and understood that there is _nothing you can do_ to nullify the existance of such people (presently. at least). Once that is done, these haters become background noise. Their words are like water off a ducks back.

I, and hundreds, if not thousands, of people like me, have a debt of gratidute to you, because you’ve educated us and broadened our minds. I am a different, and better, person now, compared to before I started reading your blog.

xxx

However, I am increasingly of the opinion that there is very little chance of finding a context in which anonymous and unmoderated comments have any broad utility, interest, or value to anyone. Maybe there’s a bit of lulz at sites like 4chan for people who consume asshattery as an art form, but I wonder about even that.

I’d say, if you have a strong need to allow anonymous comments, then you’ll need a robust moderation system; and if you have a strong need to allow every voice to be heard, you’re going to need at least some persistent psuedonymity. Otherwise, all is filth and chaos and a terrible waste of pixels.

In general, I have come to the conclusion that this whole “wisdom of the crowds” thing is a lot of bunk. With a few exceptions, I have stopped looking at people’s comments on blogs, online news sites, and the like. The combination of insipid commentary (I’m looking at you, Slashdot) and knee-jerk hate is just destroyed whatever benefit commentary had. The comments made to your column are the worst I think I’ve ever seen in that regard (seriously, that stuff is off the map)… there isn’t discourse there, just the spewing of bile.

I’m coming to the conclusion that this web 2.0 thing really only works if you must stake a bit of your reputation whenever you speak. Open commenting was an interesting experiment; but in my opinion, it has been a dismal failure. I don’t think we necessarily need to know a person’s name and address, but we need to have enough to have an online reputation that can be risked by saying something stupid, hateful, or worthless. On a lighter note, as you might imagine, I am a great believer in John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/).

Anyway, don’t let the bastards get you down. You are one of a very few people on my RSS list mainly because you write about stuff that is new to me or gets me thinking.

Anonymous contribution is great if it’s, yanno, contribution — it enables people to speak and share ideas without fear of retribution, social or physical or otherwise, and that’s awesome — you get a level playing field. But what’s being done here isn’t contribution, it’s just destruction, and it’s not just, I think, due to the anonymity of readership; I think it’s also due to you, the content *producer* not being equally treated as an anonymous figure. You see some serious noise being thrown around on 4chan and the other anonymous imgbb’s, but it doesn’t seem to hurt or harm or degrade — unless that cloak of anonymity is removed, and then all of a sudden you have these immensely polarizing and mistreated people: the moots or boxxys of the world, and then everything kinda falls apart. It’s inequality. It’s abuse of a system, and it sucks.

Love ya,
-z

From my many experiences in this area I’ve come to the conclusion that the sad truth is 90% of what people have to say is simply uninteresting/unengaging/factually incorrect/defamatory or otherwise of little or no value. That’s regardless of whether it’s anonymous, pseudo-anonymous (nicknamed) or fully attributed.

It’s the reason why radio talk shows and newspaper letters pages are usually edited.

I continue to be a champion of the equalization of the media, giving everyone a platform to comment. But I also find myself using the term “tragedy of the commons” more and more.

Defamatory comments on Violet’s column aside, check out the comments on any article on TechCrunch (a leading internet blog). 90% of the comments fail to move the conversation forward and simply present as noise. It’s v sad.

(disclaimer: Violet is my partner)

I truly feel sorry for you for having to deal with it, Violet. *hugs*