Two thoughts on this. First, the human aspect. Then, the technological aspect.

On the human aspect, real community is the sine qua non of worthwhile discussion. This can be achieved in an anonymous fashion, viz, Hacker News, which has incredibly useful, engaging discussions. Vitriol and “trolling” is limited because bans are real and backed up by serious technology, and anyway hacking Hacker News has limited upside, like scrawling graffiti over your own living room.

Real community does not mean real identity. Wikipedia has created an incredibly valuable community without real names, while others have had to police communities even where real identity is used. Take Alt12’s “Baby Bump” app, which even with Facebook authentication and real names still needs 24/7 monitoring to block hateful, personal attacks–by new moms on other new moms.

Mores and culture can help. However, if commenters know that their hateful or inappropriate comments will infiltrate the community before they can be deleted, the insurgency will never stop. And in the case of moms attacking moms, it seems the human aspect includes in its very nature the need to tear others down to feel better about one’s own failings.

Technology, however, can stop it. For example, the artificial intelligence my firm builds can eliminate or flag comments from the banal (“follow me pls”) to the hateful, instantly–not only eliminating the comment itself, but also eliminating any incentive for posting the comment to begin with. After all, what is the point of trolling if your comments never see the light of day?

Neither the human social aspect–mores, culture–nor technology can prevent comment abuse on its own. Rather both must be deployed together, in unison, to support vibrant community. This is what Hacker News has done so well, and frankly what Reddit and Twitter struggle with. And the good news is, in my opinion, there is a reason why: at Hacker News, there is clear ownership. Y Combinator calls the shots. In contrast, Reddit and Twitter continue to be engulfed in seemingly perpetual identity crises, where nobody quite knows if the company or the community owns the dialog.

At The Economist, this question of ownership is clear. Set the right tone and mores, deploy the right technologies, and with some iteration, out will spring a useful and vibrant community reflective of the publication’s offline brand.