5 ms·

This. It's not just The Guardian, though. It's pretty much all moss media. They got too used to an era where they could talk and the public couldn't talk back (

This. It's not just The Guardian, though. It's pretty much all moss media. They got too used to an era where they could talk and the public couldn't talk back (or they could but only through letters to the editor which they could conveniently filter to just the voices they wanted to hear).

ryandrake 2y ago
To be fair, Social Media is just like the "Letters to the Editor" section, except the social media company is the publisher and is the one doing the filtering.
- EarlKing 2y ago
  Right, but that's kind of my point: someone else gets to do the filtering and they can't stand it.
devindotcom 2y ago
we get lots of direct and unsolicited feedback actually, much more than paper days. a fair amount of it is threats though.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jasonfarnon 2y ago
"They got too used to an era where they could talk and the public couldn't talk back" Maybe--a lot of folks made the same point in the mid 2010s when news outlets began shutting down comment sections on their sites. They usually said it was the "toxic" atmosphere. But I imagine they really didn't like when the top comment was pointing out some obvious error (of fact, logic, grammar etc) in their article. I actually remember pointing out an error of fact on the gaurdian itself back--some review had made some ridiculous point because they were confusing the Aramaic and Amharic languages--and seeing the article later updated and my comment removed.
- reaperman 2y ago
  ArsTechnica always handled this well. They promote corrections in comments so they’re extra visible.
- nicbou 2y ago
  Comments are user generated content that you host. They require a certain level of moderation just to avoid spam and illegal or deeply unpleasant comments.
- mmooss 2y ago
  IME the comments almost universally had no value, and were very often toxic. I wouldn't want that on my website - why? What value do they add for anyone? Nobody allows that on their website now - that was before many lessons were learned. HN doesn't allow anything like it (and never has, afaik).
  - incog_nit0 2y ago
    > What value do they add for anyone? Counterpoints are useful to help negate echo chambers where we end up clicking on the articles which validate our world view. In addition the most upvoted comments (at least on the Financial Times website) are sometimes more informed and nuanced than the articles themselves. The article often gets the debate rolling - come for the articles, stay for the comments (so to speak).
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > Counterpoints In the comments section of news websites, it wasn't counterpoints. It was just aggression, lies, toxicity, etc. The Financial Times is pretty rarefied air. Everyone must be subscribed, so no anonymity (I would guesss). How much does a subscription cost? $300+ per year?
      - poobear22 2y ago
        i think about $600 a year and the comments are much higher quality.
tzs 2y ago
Most mainstream newspapers and magazines publish letters to the editor and guest editorials or opinion pieces from those who disagree with the publication's reporting or editorial opinions. What they filter out is the utter crap that invariably comes to completely dominate any unfiltered comment section that is open to the general public and takes effectively anonymous submissions via the internet.

ryandrake 2y ago

To be fair, Social Media is just like the "Letters to the Editor" section, except the social media company is the publisher and is the one doing the filtering.

EarlKing 2y ago
Right, but that's kind of my point: someone else gets to do the filtering and they can't stand it.

devindotcom 2y ago

we get lots of direct and unsolicited feedback actually, much more than paper days. a fair amount of it is threats though.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jasonfarnon 2y ago

"They got too used to an era where they could talk and the public couldn't talk back" Maybe--a lot of folks made the same point in the mid 2010s when news outlets began shutting down comment sections on their sites. They usually said it was the "toxic" atmosphere. But I imagine they really didn't like when the top comment was pointing out some obvious error (of fact, logic, grammar etc) in their article. I actually remember pointing out an error of fact on the gaurdian itself back--some review had made some ridiculous point because they were confusing the Aramaic and Amharic languages--and seeing the article later updated and my comment removed.

reaperman 2y ago
ArsTechnica always handled this well. They promote corrections in comments so they’re extra visible.
nicbou 2y ago
Comments are user generated content that you host. They require a certain level of moderation just to avoid spam and illegal or deeply unpleasant comments.
mmooss 2y ago
IME the comments almost universally had no value, and were very often toxic. I wouldn't want that on my website - why? What value do they add for anyone? Nobody allows that on their website now - that was before many lessons were learned. HN doesn't allow anything like it (and never has, afaik).
- incog_nit0 2y ago
  > What value do they add for anyone? Counterpoints are useful to help negate echo chambers where we end up clicking on the articles which validate our world view. In addition the most upvoted comments (at least on the Financial Times website) are sometimes more informed and nuanced than the articles themselves. The article often gets the debate rolling - come for the articles, stay for the comments (so to speak).
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > Counterpoints In the comments section of news websites, it wasn't counterpoints. It was just aggression, lies, toxicity, etc. The Financial Times is pretty rarefied air. Everyone must be subscribed, so no anonymity (I would guesss). How much does a subscription cost? $300+ per year?
    - poobear22 2y ago
      i think about $600 a year and the comments are much higher quality.

tzs 2y ago

Most mainstream newspapers and magazines publish letters to the editor and guest editorials or opinion pieces from those who disagree with the publication's reporting or editorial opinions. What they filter out is the utter crap that invariably comes to completely dominate any unfiltered comment section that is open to the general public and takes effectively anonymous submissions via the internet.