4 ms·

"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 outl

"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.
      - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
        They aren't as good as here though.
    - tim333 2y ago
      You get some worthwhile commentary even on trashy sites (eg. Daily Mail, X) You just have to filter a bit. I'm find it kind of annoying when you can't comment on an article with obvious things wrong.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        Most give you an option to contact the author. I've corresponded with a few - most of what they get is death threats, etc.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  > What value do they add for anyone? What about the example at the head of this comment chain? I think news sites did lose something without feedback. I can accept a chess pool with a single good comment to make up for it. So it does provide value for me and I disagree with the "lessons learned". Also, the legal risks of showing user content should be scraped for anything that is not explicitly illegal. We have information bubbles now that are way worse than the occasional comment in bad taste.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > I can accept a chess pool with a single good comment to make up for it. Have fun with that. > the occasional comment in bad taste. That's a lot different than most social media.
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      > Have fun with that. I do, that is the argument. It would also leave me better informed since the example clearly shows that the statements could benefit from a wider context. And this wouldn't be the only case. If comments don't provide value for you, you can ignore them. No reason to remove them for everybody else too. I stopped reading the Guardian a few years ago. It once had really good content. That changed significantly in my opinion.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > It would also leave me better informed You do you, but my argument is that it leaves you worse informed: 1) There is a lot of false information, which will mislead you inevitably (you're not that smart; nobody is) 2) There is a lot of noise for the signal, a lot of waste. You are worse informed because you could have spent the time learning from higher quality information.

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.
    - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
      They aren't as good as here though.
  - tim333 2y ago
    You get some worthwhile commentary even on trashy sites (eg. Daily Mail, X) You just have to filter a bit. I'm find it kind of annoying when you can't comment on an article with obvious things wrong.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Most give you an option to contact the author. I've corresponded with a few - most of what they get is death threats, etc.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
> What value do they add for anyone? What about the example at the head of this comment chain? I think news sites did lose something without feedback. I can accept a chess pool with a single good comment to make up for it. So it does provide value for me and I disagree with the "lessons learned". Also, the legal risks of showing user content should be scraped for anything that is not explicitly illegal. We have information bubbles now that are way worse than the occasional comment in bad taste.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > I can accept a chess pool with a single good comment to make up for it. Have fun with that. > the occasional comment in bad taste. That's a lot different than most social media.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    > Have fun with that. I do, that is the argument. It would also leave me better informed since the example clearly shows that the statements could benefit from a wider context. And this wouldn't be the only case. If comments don't provide value for you, you can ignore them. No reason to remove them for everybody else too. I stopped reading the Guardian a few years ago. It once had really good content. That changed significantly in my opinion.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > It would also leave me better informed You do you, but my argument is that it leaves you worse informed: 1) There is a lot of false information, which will mislead you inevitably (you're not that smart; nobody is) 2) There is a lot of noise for the signal, a lot of waste. You are worse informed because you could have spent the time learning from higher quality information.