I always filter the letters for "editor's choices" only, because the slew of other responses are really just TMI, whether or not they're well written. Sometimes the internet feels like one big one garbled churning noise box; I don't have any interest in spending all my time inside it, reaching around again and again just to find one little bit of something that makes sense to me or that I connect with. Nor do I see anything wrong with some QA'ing of LWs-- so what if the journalists make their own "arrogant" choices about what's printworthy and what's not? Let them do that and present their case. If I don't like what I'm reading, I can always go somewhere else. If the alternative to hearing just one or two opinions is to hear everyone else's opinion all the time-- that just makes my head spin.

Sometimes Salon as a package doesn't feel as sharp or as cohesive as it used to. This barn-door letter forum may be part of that new face, but it's not necessarily for the better. Please consider going back to the old format.

Don't know what Salon is planning, but I hope it doesn't involve the use of real names or verified accounts.

I hate trolls as much as the rest of you, but being forced to use my name will make me silent. And I am a thoughtful letter-writer.

Look at it this way. Everything that ever gets written on Salon, or anywhere on the net, is public property forever. When I was younger (teens and 20's), I said a lot of things that I regret today. Not because they were mean or hateful, but because I no longer agree with those viewpoints. But when I talked, I spoke out loud to my friends. There is no "permanent record." I will still be able to hold political office, get security clearances, etc, despite some strongly left-of-center views.

Right now it's the same way on Salon. I can say what I like, and it can't be traced back to me (or at least it's extremeley unlikely). I don't have to worry about changes in public opinion or whatever else that might make certain statements seem unforgivable in the future.

Maybe this is paranoid, but people are condemned or denied based on old words all the time. I don't trust "free speech" enough to put it to the limit.

And on a more personal note, some of what I say now is not utterable in left-wing SF without an argument, often a knee-jerk one. So here I can speak freely, gel my nascent ideas into principles, and eventually take them strengthened into the world.

Please let me remain anonymous, Salon!

After I realized I was getting a bit too addicted to writing letters to Salon and viewing the responses, I made a rule that I would only post two per article. This has helped somewhat.

Generally, posters move through three phases.

1. They read the whole article and thoughtfully respond.

2. Posts begin getting inflammatory, and several letter writers engage in personal battle. Insults fly which have little to do with the original topic.

3. After some brave soul makes a belated plea for civility, the topic is returned to but with not as much fervor as before.

After which the letters taper off.

No worries. Writers *will* write. The courageous ones, anyway. And they're the only ones who matter. That part hasn't changed, nor will it.

Whether or not there continues to be an audience for creative, reflective, insightful writing remains to be seen. My experience with adults under 25 - hooked, as they are, on a constantly charged neurological I.V. of text messages, voice mail and entertainment media - provides little reason for optimism.

The entire political-media establishment is "concerned" about self-publishing and open publishing, but the *coarsening of society* is far from the primary source of its discontent. Losing credibility, prestige, attention, advertisers and market share to writers and commentators who aren't in the club - that's a problem. Not having a monopoly on setting the parameters of public discourse - determining what views should or shouldn't be taken seriously - that's a problem. And, of course, accountability is always a problem.

As someone who has long felt completely alienated from traditional top-down information outlets - and repeatedly betrayed by the [non-existent] Fourth Estate - I'm delighted to see the old order subverted. Online media isn't pretty, but it's far closer to the spirit of truth than the old self-contained, insular, ivory tower model of journalism and editorial commentary.

People know trolling, misogyny and canned talking points when they see them. If an audience can't be trusted to discern pathos from reasoned discussion, it's time to start cultivating a more sophisticated audience.

Rather than attempting to provide accurate, probing journalism, the goal now seems to be as Joan herself says in this article, “page views.” That’s the really the lowest and most crass form of journalism, and so great a distance to fall from what this site started out as, it really is sad to see such devolution. It’s not even a new model – it’s an old model of populist publishing in a new medium. ...

Everything is black-and-white, without nuance, and as purposefully (and disturbingly) polarizing as could be. You can almost see the editors counting the letters before the enter buttons are hit. The more the better.

-- Salon or Thunderdome?

Salon editors complain when feedback is polarized, heated, and seems to bring out the worst in people...?

Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair and such have the sense to separate the shit from the meal. Salon serves up feces a la mode.

C grade writers bungled attempts at addressing difficult cultural issues, just irritates people. Debra Dickerson for example. Why is that hack even paid to write such uninspired race baiting garbage?

..filtering, ratings, or any other suggestion that others have made. I don't think there's a problem here. I believe the letters section has been a great success in bringing much needed fresh air and new views into Salon. It seems that the letters have made more people more interested in what Salon--and its readers--have to say.

I think these letters work as a true PUBLIC FORUM where contrary opinion at least has a chance to be heard, whether people want to hear it or not. Filtering and other schemes will only turn the letters into another vapid "community" where conformity and consensus opinion will be enforced by the smallest minded members of the community--as in Salon's much loathed and lamented Table Talk.

Yes, the letters can be pretty disconcerting to the writers. But what did you expect? People vary wildly in their views, their manners, their intelligence, their desires, and their backgrounds. Write about ANYTHING and some people won't like it and they will express their opinion in the bluntest and meanest way possible. This was always true but now we can see it as a plain fact of life. Why would we want to hide this fact of life and pretend it isn't so? It is so. Let's accept it and deal with it and learn from it. That's what the Internet is for--to find out what other people think.

Note that no one on the Internet represents anyone but themselves. Since some people choose to post while others choose not to, there is no such thing as a random selection of opinion on the Internet. If a selection isn't random, then it can't be representative. Hence there is no guarantee that ANY response you get for an article will actually reflect what your readers think.

If five, or fifty, or five thousand people write in and say they don't like your article, that doesn't mean anything. Everyone else might still like it--it just might be those people who responded who have a problem with it.

You can't take Internet responses as generally representative of anything. You can only take them as particular responses, some of which may be valuable (as I hope this letter is). That's why filtering is wrong, because filtering will often only remove the particular while leaving the falsely representative.

The fact is that in spite of all the shouting writers in the Internet age are still left mostly in the dark as to how their articles are coming across--just as they ever were. Feedback on the Internet simply isn't valid. The only solution is to do what good writers and editors have always done; rely on your own best judgement as to what is a good article and what is worth saying and what is the best way to say it--and try to stick to that judgement in spite of what hundreds or even thousands of people might say against you.