4 ms·

You need a subscription to read and comment on the FT website and the quality of the comments is still pretty bad there in my opinion.

by pvitz 6y ago

_nalply 6y ago
Is this a separate subscription for commenting only? Perhaps this would work: an additional small fee for the possibility to add a comment? I don't know, probably this would also drive away people who comment sensibly. [edit: rewrote a badly written subclause to be clearer than before]
- toyg 6y ago
  The worst commenters have an agenda, so they will put down that fee as a "cost of doing business", like printing leaflets. Your suggestion would address spam, but as major newspapers end up paywalled that's largely a non-issue. The others are moving to compulsory social login (e.g. FB) which also mitigates that (and basically makes you "pay" with your personal details). Newspapers should totally have an easy feedback form, possibly even a dedicated forum, but not comments.
  - _nalply 6y ago
    Point taken. I see now that my idea is a bad one. Moderation is really difficult.
  - HenryBemis 6y ago
    > and basically makes you "pay" with your personal details I believe the parent means that you pay/it hurts your wallet (even if it is $5 per year). When you "pay" via your facebook details being shared, then this cost doesn't affect you. If you cared you woulnd't be using FB in the first place :)
    - usrusr 6y ago
      See also public groups/comments on Facebook itself: the realname convention makes most reasonable people self-censor to silence, leaving only the wildest nutcases posting (with rare exceptions in between). Even if you don't use your real name there, as long as you aren't on a dedicated spam account you'll still be connected to your real life network and that is enough for massive self-censoring to happen. Would your hn posts happen if they'd show up in the feeds of distant family? Mine surely would not, and that's while I try keeping hn posts to the highest quality tier of all my online interactions.
mFixman 6y ago
I feel their quality is about the same of the comment section of a subreddit I disagree with, which is much better than any other online newspaper.
sefrost 6y ago
The FT do subscriptions for teams, so those commenters might not even be paying for it themselves. It could be paid for by their employer. I could be wrong - I don't know if those accounts are able to comment or not.
- pvitz 6y ago
  So I happen to actually have such an account and there seems to be no difference to the normal subscriber account. However, commenting with this account means commenting with your corporate account. I would expect that people are more careful then, but it seems like this might not be the case.

You need a subscription to read and comment on the FT website and the quality of the comments is still pretty bad there in my opinion.

by pvitz 6y ago

You need a subscription to read and comment on the FT website and the quality of the comments is still pretty bad there in my opinion.

_nalply 6y ago

Is this a separate subscription for commenting only? Perhaps this would work: an additional small fee for the possibility to add a comment? I don't know, probably this would also drive away people who comment sensibly. [edit: rewrote a badly written subclause to be clearer than before]

toyg 6y ago
The worst commenters have an agenda, so they will put down that fee as a "cost of doing business", like printing leaflets. Your suggestion would address spam, but as major newspapers end up paywalled that's largely a non-issue. The others are moving to compulsory social login (e.g. FB) which also mitigates that (and basically makes you "pay" with your personal details). Newspapers should totally have an easy feedback form, possibly even a dedicated forum, but not comments.
- _nalply 6y ago
  Point taken. I see now that my idea is a bad one. Moderation is really difficult.
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  > and basically makes you "pay" with your personal details I believe the parent means that you pay/it hurts your wallet (even if it is $5 per year). When you "pay" via your facebook details being shared, then this cost doesn't affect you. If you cared you woulnd't be using FB in the first place :)
  - usrusr 6y ago
    See also public groups/comments on Facebook itself: the realname convention makes most reasonable people self-censor to silence, leaving only the wildest nutcases posting (with rare exceptions in between). Even if you don't use your real name there, as long as you aren't on a dedicated spam account you'll still be connected to your real life network and that is enough for massive self-censoring to happen. Would your hn posts happen if they'd show up in the feeds of distant family? Mine surely would not, and that's while I try keeping hn posts to the highest quality tier of all my online interactions.

mFixman 6y ago

I feel their quality is about the same of the comment section of a subreddit I disagree with, which is much better than any other online newspaper.

sefrost 6y ago

The FT do subscriptions for teams, so those commenters might not even be paying for it themselves. It could be paid for by their employer. I could be wrong - I don't know if those accounts are able to comment or not.

pvitz 6y ago
So I happen to actually have such an account and there seems to be no difference to the normal subscriber account. However, commenting with this account means commenting with your corporate account. I would expect that people are more careful then, but it seems like this might not be the case.