Don't feed the bears

Last week, Russ Pitts, the features editor at Polygon, wrote a lengthy blog post about engaging angry readers. Pitts is a tech journalist, and if you've ever read the comments section on any technology website, you're probably still trying to Clorox the words from the back of your eyelids.

The piece was a response to an anonymously authored article that personally insulted Pitts, suggested that he was a sexual predator, and hinted at his pedophilia. Obviously, none of this is true, and the point of Mr. Pitts' blog was to publicly acknowledge that this kind of behavior is unacceptable.

But here's the problem: everyone already knows that it's unacceptable.

I definitely recognize Pitt's motivation. Defensiveness is built into our DNA, and it's not always a negative thing. But is anything gained when we go out of our way to address a faceless internet thug? And if we choose not to engage, at what point does our silence begin to sound like apathy?

I certainly don't know if Pitts handled the situation correctly. His blog post is convincing. But the more that I think about it, the more confused I am.

Thoughts?