Accountabilty for online comments

The comments on news media websites are generally a battlefield for trolls. They are often racist, ignorant, uneducated, and bitter feeding grounds approved by what must be similar minded webmasters.
I’ve seen comments so unrelated to news stories and so hurtful to minorities I wonder who’s in charge of this mess. Who’s the person pressing the “allow for public consumption” button on the other side?
What’s their name, what are their views? What are their identities, and how are they accountable?
It wasn’t until recently that commenting online has been available to the mass public via news media outlets, mainly online newspaper stories. Before then, we read a story, had our opinions and discussed them amongst likeminded friends and family, if at all. The passionate ones wrote a letter to the editor, (the editor being the obvious one accountable to publishing) which could then bring forward rebuttals of other passionate people.
Today, anybody masked by the mystery of avatars can comment on anything, anytime with little threat of social backlash. Brash commenting encourages other likeminded troll-like creatures to add to the banter. Take the belligerent ramblings of Youtube comments for example or any major news outlet website.
Imagine you’re in a room filled with the very people watching and participating in the online section of a news story. In the case of the Fort William bridge burning down, would the person who tweeted their hopes for the fire to reach Fort William First Nation (suggesting the people there be displaced or killed) walk up to the podium and microphone, in front of all his peers watching, and say loudly those very words? How would those words echo with the people living on Fort William First Nation present, their children, the elders, the regular people with regular problems and regular jobs, in the same situation as the one on the podium. Would they still wish death to those people?
What is the identity of that commenter who chose to remain anonymous? What are their beliefs? Does their religion condone the suffering of others?
I think the comment section can be very helpful in the right context. Take weight loss forums, help sections, and product reviews. These fill a need for a discussion, are usually very helpful to viewers, and we take what we need from them. There is an inherent purpose for these areas.
News is generally “opinion free”. What is the common goal of such comment sections under a news story? I’m not sure what that is. It’s a wildfire of many opinions. What does it add to?
To me, most of the time, pity. Pity for anybody who wastes their time debating on them, and who are generally angered and frustrated by the comments. At the end of the day, the views of others are generally unchanged. My impressions of the commenters do though. How impersonal and rude we are with our shield of secrecy hiding our true identities.
Websites claim, “the opinions of commenters do not reflect the opinion of ‘such newspaper/media’”. Well, I think it does. You approved it, published it, host it and display it for all to see, and with what end?
Next time you’re commenting, consider if you would say it in front of all the viewers sitting in front of you. Would you speak, standing on the podium, in the spotlight with a mic and loud speakers at your side? And would you say this to your friends, family, co-workers, and to the person sitting beside you who you don’t know to hear and see?
What we say and put out into the world is a mark on us as individuals. We send out our messages and energy and create the world we live in. We as commenters and participators need to realize the power we have and how we affect others.
Be accountable to yourself and your own values. Otherwise, we’re just ugly trolls, leaving filth in our trail.