4 ms·

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, probab

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.

4 ms·

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, probab

by _nalply 6y ago

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.