Spreading misinformation on political news through comment sections and social media has become a rampant problem. Most news sites with a discussion feature ar

Spreading misinformation on political news through comment sections and social media has become a rampant problem. Most news sites with a discussion feature are so full of toxic and misleading comments that some form of moderation is necessary for healthy discourse. It gets especially bad after a few days when the news wanes, but the trolls keep coming. Anyone digging up an article from a month ago to see the discussion will only find the aftermath of an army of trolls, with all insightful or impartial comments drowned out. This has been a problem since the dawn of the Internet, and along the way we have seen some interesting approaches at comment moderation (Slashdot is a classic example). Moderation has the potential for abuse, and as such, should be applied reasonably and transparently. That said, I can't blame anyone for searching for new ways to fight trolling and the promotion of blatant ignorance in this day and age. The New York Times has even resorted to limiting discussions (or not rolling them out to every last article in the first place) and human moderation. It slows down discussion, and it may be subject to censorship, but it goes a long way towards helping both sides have a say in the discussion without it devolving to Youtube quality discourse.