is there any major news or whatever site where the staff writers do take feedback via comments? Even on PA where the 'comments' are filtered through vanilla and thus moderation, 'GABE AND TYCHO DON'T READ THE FORUMS' seems to need to be included in every recitation of the rules
I would go further and suggest that nothing of value has ever occurred in any comments section ever.
As for the comment, my experience has been that people that defend comments sections are:
1. Extremely unfamiliar with the internet at large.
2. The reason said comments sections suck.
So...which camp to G&T belong to?
Relatedly enough, it's my experience that the websites that are making the most about proclaiming the end of their comment sections are ones that are unapologetically editorialized. Vice Motherboard is unabashedly progressive in their editorial stance; the risible part (the one that the comic is directly lampooning) of their post stating they are taking comments away was that replacing article comment sections with an email address and a curated "Letters" section was that the latter "buried" discussion while the former only highlights the best (the best, in this case, being... whatever Motherboard in its editorial capacity decides it is). It also shows that their understanding of comments sections is that they necessarily are designed for interaction between author and reader; I think that that sort of thing can be good, but comment sections are also for the benefit of others readers, such as being a quick reference for possible omissions, factual errors, or disguised editorial.
The New York Times recently had an article addressing how one of their online articles had rapidly shifted from a basic and somewhat-balanced outline to a more editorialized approach over the course of a day or two, and whether it was appropriate to allow the basic article to stand and write a follow-up article, or to replace their original reporting altogether as had occurred. For reference, the NYT position was that modern news consumers expect commentary along with their news, so rewriting the article over the course of a few days is to be expected. The reason I bring it up is twofold: firstly, the article addressing the reporting would have never happened if it weren't for commenters for the original article openly wondering what was going on as the article changed before their very eyes; secondly, the comments for the second article were not, to perhaps your and my surprise, a wasteland of troglodytes and harassers - most top comments were of the opinion that there are myriad other ways to get your news served to you alongside the opinion you want to hear, and that sort of thing isn't quite as expected from a paper of record like the NYT.
I'm sure the NYT actively moderates its comments, as well as giving commenters the ability to "vote up" insightful comments. I agree that if Motherboard thinks itself incapable of doing so, then leaving comments out might be a better approach, but I'm more hesitant to believe that it will foster "discussion" or more helpful criticism, and I absolutely don't think it will be to much benefit to readers. You're only going to see the commentary that Motherboard wants you to see now, and have the discussions Motherboard wants you to have. Oddly enough, that approach can work when you're as circumspect as the NYT or WSJ, but it isn't those kinds of publication that are doing this - it's ones that wear their biases on their sleeves, intermingle opinion with fact, and are quick to judge others and even quicker to turn defensive.
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
+3
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
I would at least say to wait and see if Jerry elaborates on this before assuming their position is neatly summed up by a sarcastic comic, and extrapolated out to mean "everyone should face the full, unfiltered force of an internet comments sluice".
Like, that may well be how it turns out, but I expect there'll be a little more reason there.
Maybe he could make an effort in the actual comic instead.
I should point out that Penny Arcade's own policy is to invest heavily in community, both through comments and the forum. There's no hypocrisy on that front.
I would at least say to wait and see if Jerry elaborates on this before assuming their position is neatly summed up by a sarcastic comic, and extrapolated out to mean "everyone should face the full, unfiltered force of an internet comments sluice".
Like, that may well be how it turns out, but I expect there'll be a little more reason there.
Maybe he could make an effort in the actual comic instead.
Maybe they felt they did? I dunno, on rereading it, and the source, I can kind of see where it's coming from. The announcement from Motherboard that they're scrapping comments, but replacing it with 'something better: emails!', I can see how that reads like a ridiculous oxymoron. Like, if you want a discourse with your readers, have that. If you don't, then don't. I can quite imagine that's the thing that they're joking about. Have one or the other, but it feels silly to say "we're making it better!" and then go to something less direct and conversational.
Comments sections are mainly beneficial to objectively bad people who want to spread intellectual poison and society-ruining social diseases like homophobia and white resentment under the guise of libertarian wank, Open Debate and freeze peach. I hope this blows back hard against Tycho and Gabe.
How is something objectively subjective exactly?
I would also like to know who out there is being influenced by and taking to heart any of this "intellectual poison".... which they found in a comments section.
I'll wait for the news post, but I'm pretty sure this is mocking the BS statements that usually accompany the closing of comments: "We're doing this so we can better hear from YOU, dear users!". That's clearly not the case. You don't need to have some principled stand for or against comment sections to recognize that as sugar-coated crap.
If you think comments are worthless, just say so and leave it at that. Clearly Jerry and Mike believe similarly, given their previous statements. And I'm inclined to agree in most cases. But the stated rationales are usually bogus.
Don't pretend that offloading your discussion elsewhere is some big benefit to your readers. And letters to the editor? Ha! You know most of those are going straight to the bin.
Personally, my preference is for comments sections to exist and for me to ignore them at my own discretion.
Comments sections are mainly beneficial to objectively bad people who want to spread intellectual poison and society-ruining social diseases like homophobia and white resentment under the guise of libertarian wank, Open Debate and freeze peach. I hope this blows back hard against Tycho and Gabe.
How is something objectively subjective exactly?
I would also like to know who out there is being influenced by and taking to heart any of this "intellectual poison".... which they found in a comments section.
Argumentation and the marketplace of ideas is not a meritocracy and some people have lesser, more susceptible brains. Look up how the tobacco lobby operated or the psychology behind how climate science deniers seed doubt by repeating the same BS talking points and deceitful but not immediately unbelievable claims.
Then there is the slander and silencing campaigns furthered by "libertarians" who hate everyone who is not male, cis, pro-White, Judeo-Christian and conservative in their politics.
Like I said: objectively bad and good to remove or channel into swamps like hate-chan where the evil is distilled, goes unhinged and can't bother to present a friendly face, hampering its propaganda efforts.
A place on 4chan was in essence a completely unmoderated comments sections where a teenage loser built up enough bitterness and hate towards women to turn into a mass murderer, and they are hoping to foment more.
is there any major news or whatever site where the staff writers do take feedback via comments? Even on PA where the 'comments' are filtered through vanilla and thus moderation, 'GABE AND TYCHO DON'T READ THE FORUMS' seems to need to be included in every recitation of the rules
I would go further and suggest that nothing of value has ever occurred in any comments section ever.
As for the comment, my experience has been that people that defend comments sections are:
1. Extremely unfamiliar with the internet at large.
2. The reason said comments sections suck.
So...which camp to G&T belong to?
Relatedly enough, it's my experience that the websites that are making the most about proclaiming the end of their comment sections are ones that are unapologetically editorialized. Vice Motherboard is unabashedly progressive in their editorial stance; the risible part (the one that the comic is directly lampooning) of their post stating they are taking comments away was that replacing article comment sections with an email address and a curated "Letters" section was that the latter "buried" discussion while the former only highlights the best (the best, in this case, being... whatever Motherboard in its editorial capacity decides it is). It also shows that their understanding of comments sections is that they necessarily are designed for interaction between author and reader; I think that that sort of thing can be good, but comment sections are also for the benefit of others readers, such as being a quick reference for possible omissions, factual errors, or disguised editorial.
The New York Times recently had an article addressing how one of their online articles had rapidly shifted from a basic and somewhat-balanced outline to a more editorialized approach over the course of a day or two, and whether it was appropriate to allow the basic article to stand and write a follow-up article, or to replace their original reporting altogether as had occurred. For reference, the NYT position was that modern news consumers expect commentary along with their news, so rewriting the article over the course of a few days is to be expected. The reason I bring it up is twofold: firstly, the article addressing the reporting would have never happened if it weren't for commenters for the original article openly wondering what was going on as the article changed before their very eyes; secondly, the comments for the second article were not, to perhaps your and my surprise, a wasteland of troglodytes and harassers - most top comments were of the opinion that there are myriad other ways to get your news served to you alongside the opinion you want to hear, and that sort of thing isn't quite as expected from a paper of record like the NYT.
I'm sure the NYT actively moderates its comments, as well as giving commenters the ability to "vote up" insightful comments. I agree that if Motherboard thinks itself incapable of doing so, then leaving comments out might be a better approach, but I'm more hesitant to believe that it will foster "discussion" or more helpful criticism, and I absolutely don't think it will be to much benefit to readers. You're only going to see the commentary that Motherboard wants you to see now, and have the discussions Motherboard wants you to have. Oddly enough, that approach can work when you're as circumspect as the NYT or WSJ, but it isn't those kinds of publication that are doing this - it's ones that wear their biases on their sleeves, intermingle opinion with fact, and are quick to judge others and even quicker to turn defensive.
I don't know. I think people who earnestly believe what they're saying will still go through a small hoop or two in order to tell the writers/editors what's on their mind. Getting rid of comments section won't drive away nearly as much constructive criticism as it will the troglodytes. Think of it this way: a closed door with a sign that says "Please Knock" will keep out a LOT of people that would otherwise simplpy walk through an open door, even if that door is unlocked.
This seems like the perfect discussion system for Social Justice Warriors.
Personally, I don't believe in moderation of forums or comment sections, beyond the obvious of removing illegal material/death threats/personal information/spam.
Users should just have the ability to mute/block anyone they communicate with. Self-moderation. Beyond that moderation only exists to protect people's precious feelings and silence anyone the larger community disagrees with or doesn't like. It's childish and foolish on its face.
Unmoderated comments often end up being the most heavily moderated comment sections out there, it's just that the "mods" are the commenters, not the admins. Without some sort of enforced rule about not being horrible, the loudest voices tend to band together to shout down everyone else and promote their singular viewpoint. Anyone who comes in with a different viewpoint is screamed out.
Smart moderation doesn't shut down open, useful discussion. It enables it.
It's pretty clear to me that the point this comic is making is not pro or anti comments sections per se but rather that it's laughably hypocritical to get rid of them and claim you're doing it because you want more feedback and dialogue.
So how does dog's blood compare to Charlie Sheen's tiger blood?
Comments sections are mainly beneficial to objectively bad people who want to spread intellectual poison and society-ruining social diseases like homophobia and white resentment under the guise of libertarian wank, Open Debate and freeze peach. I hope this blows back hard against Tycho and Gabe.
How is something objectively subjective exactly?
I would also like to know who out there is being influenced by and taking to heart any of this "intellectual poison".... which they found in a comments section.
Argumentation and the marketplace of ideas is not a meritocracy and some people have lesser, more susceptible brains. Look up how the tobacco lobby operated or the psychology behind how climate science deniers seed doubt by repeating the same BS talking points and deceitful but not immediately unbelievable claims.
Then there is the slander and silencing campaigns furthered by "libertarians" who hate everyone who is not male, cis, pro-White, Judeo-Christian and conservative in their politics.
Like I said: objectively bad and good to remove or channel into swamps like hate-chan where the evil is distilled, goes unhinged and can't bother to present a friendly face, hampering its propaganda efforts.
A place on 4chan was in essence a completely unmoderated comments sections where a teenage loser built up enough bitterness and hate towards women to turn into a mass murderer, and they are hoping to foment more.
Wait, this last line here: are you saying that's the goal of people who demand "open discussion" at all costs, or Gabe and Tycho specifically?
Comments sections are mainly beneficial to objectively bad people who want to spread intellectual poison and society-ruining social diseases like homophobia and white resentment under the guise of libertarian wank, Open Debate and freeze peach. I hope this blows back hard against Tycho and Gabe.
How is something objectively subjective exactly?
I would also like to know who out there is being influenced by and taking to heart any of this "intellectual poison".... which they found in a comments section.
Argumentation and the marketplace of ideas is not a meritocracy and some people have lesser, more susceptible brains. Look up how the tobacco lobby operated or the psychology behind how climate science deniers seed doubt by repeating the same BS talking points and deceitful but not immediately unbelievable claims.
I tend not to take the low-minded into consideration for... well, for anything.
Then there is the slander and silencing campaigns furthered by "libertarians" who hate everyone who is not male, cis, pro-White, Judeo-Christian and conservative in their politics.
Don't think I've ever seen a "silencing campaign", merely people who wish to offer counter-arguments and express their feelings on a subject on equal ground and offer information to support it or debunk their opponents.
I believe everyone is entitled to the expression of their beliefs no matter how vile someone else may think they are.
Like I said: objectively bad and good to remove or channel into swamps like hate-chan where the evil is distilled, goes unhinged and can't bother to present a friendly face, hampering its propaganda efforts.
You've lost me at this point. I don't understand how opinions can be objective and how "evil" websites that allow completely free speech and anonymity are bad.
I've never been a fan of thought-policing or authoritarianism.
A place on 4chan was in essence a completely unmoderated comments sections where a teenage loser built up enough bitterness and hate towards women to turn into a mass murderer, and they are hoping to foment more.
Wasn't that this person's choice however? I don't believe in blaming others for the actions of individuals, unless they were directly coerced.
Yes, I'm aware of the board. I made a mistake however, I should have said "unmoderated discussion and debate". I dislike others stepping in and telling people how to act or present themselves.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
Yes, I'm aware of the board. I made a mistake however, I should have said "unmoderated discussion and debate". I dislike others stepping in and telling people how to act or present themselves.
I don't mind not having a comments section on content, not everything newts a discussion.
This is why I've always enjoyed using a dedicated platform for discussion, some public.. place where people could post their thought on a subject. Kind of a catch all for topics and replies to those topics. Kind of like a bulletin board or public forum or something
But that's just crazy, I have no idea what you'd even call those
Wait, this last line here: are you saying that's the goal of people who demand "open discussion" at all costs, or Gabe and Tycho specifically?
The people on the 4chan board where the Oregon shooter whined about not getting laid. They're the ones trying to foment more mass shootings as we speak.
0
Options
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
I think there may be some confusion here. Motherboard is a site which is part of the Vice network which just turned off comments on their articles. Vox has never had comments, I don't think? (Given how quickly and completely they stonewall any time somebody points out they fucked up on social media I'd be surprised if they had comments.)
The title is a reference (I am pretty sure) to the latin phrase "Vox populi, vox dei" which means something like "The voice of the people is the voice of God."
If that's the case, then God must be a raging asshole.
Yes, I'm aware of the board. I made a mistake however, I should have said "unmoderated discussion and debate". I dislike others stepping in and telling people how to act or present themselves.
Wait, this last line here: are you saying that's the goal of people who demand "open discussion" at all costs, or Gabe and Tycho specifically?
The people on the 4chan board where the Oregon shooter whined about not getting laid. They're the ones trying to foment more mass shootings as we speak.
Yeah I'd misread what you were saying to be implying that M&J were advocating for more places like the chans.
If you're popular and write about... Anything truly controversial, such as politics or religion, there is basically no chance for your comment section to not be a total shit show. You can pay a bunch of moderators to get PTSD for your sake and restore a semblance of civility but not everyone can afford to do so. If you somehow find the time to do it yourself all of the abuse is likely to take a toll on your mental health. I don't - I can't - blame anyone for killing off their comment section.
As a shareholder in vox media I blame them for killing off their comments section because comments sections are good drivers of clicks
Oh cool. There's a comments section here. When did that happen? Beats having to open up the Forums.
Anyway, back on topic: Discussion is good. Free speech is laudable. However, there is nothing stating that Motherboard needs to provide a venue for discussion, nor free speech. It would be nice, but they are ultimately under no compulsion to do so (the First Amendment guarantees free speech, but not the right to use someone else's privately-operated and owned platform for said free speech).
I can draw a comparison here to tech website The Verge (which is owned by Vox Media; unlike Vox itself, it actually still has comment sections), which turned off comments to most of its articles due to excessive trolling/shitposting that grew too toxic for even the (volunteer, mind you) moderators to handle. The userbase responded by moving discussion to the (on-site) forums instead, and frankly I think that the quality of discussion changed for the better. People actually *think* about what they want to say if they can't just spray their words on the lower half of the page, it seems.
I'm not saying that Motherboard's approach is good (if anything, it seems a little self-serving, and the justification is mealy-mouthed dissembling), but if the users want to have a place to discuss the articles, well, start one. There are plenty of platforms that allow for easy, nearly effort-free establishment of forums. Reddit still exists.
I don't have any doubt that it's actually way easier to read feedback through email than through the universally terrible user interface of comments sections
A lot of magazines, news sites, etc are doing away with comments sections. It's much easier to control the narrative when dissenters aren't given the chance to speak. Worse than Motherboard, though, are the various news and special-interest sites that remove the opportunity to comment, allowing them to spew blatant lies without anyone being able to directly call them on it.
It's very hard to cultivate a decent commenting community. It took years for the PA forums to become what they are today, I remember the bad old days when homophobic slurs were used almost as punctuation. The larger a website becomes, the more likely their comments are going to be a total clusterfuck of shitposting, insults, and spam. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to host that kind of content, even if it comes at the expense of clicks, as -Tal mentioned.
I admit I have a bad habit of hate-reading horrible internet comments, so I do sometime feel a twinge of "Aww, man" when I see a website doesn't have a comments section. But I absolutely understand the decision, no one is obligated to provide a forum for toxicity on their own web space.
A lot of magazines, news sites, etc are doing away with comments sections. It's much easier to control the narrative when dissenters aren't given the chance to speak. Worse than Motherboard, though, are the various news and special-interest sites that remove the opportunity to comment, allowing them to spew blatant lies without anyone being able to directly call them on it.
I guarantee no one was checking the comments sections of these sites to learn the veracity of articles.
A lot of magazines, news sites, etc are doing away with comments sections. It's much easier to control the narrative when dissenters aren't given the chance to speak. Worse than Motherboard, though, are the various news and special-interest sites that remove the opportunity to comment, allowing them to spew blatant lies without anyone being able to directly call them on it.
Yes, because when I want to find out if an article is on the up-and-up, I go seek the wisdom of FeministRaper69 and JewKiller420.
There's a big difference between Jerry's "I make what I want, and don't care for audience feedback" and the anti-comments section stance of "I don't want to provide a public space for discussion of my work." @Soul Sanctum actually got that right in his second post in this thread; comments are for talking to our fellow audience members, not as a reader-to-creator channel. The fact that some creators use it for the latter purpose is a testament either to their confidence or their naïveté.
There's also a big difference between saying "I don't want to provide a comment section" and "We want to remove our comment section." I agree that comment sections are only as good as their moderation, and that no comments is better than an unmoderated shit-show, but I generally prefer to have a comment section, and removing one altogether is kind of like giving your audience the finger.
Agreed that SJW has pretty much become a red-flag for anti-progressive thinking. I had the impression it was initially intended only to ridicule the overly-dramatic online slacktivist types, but it's clear to me now that SJW is overwhelmingly used to marginalize anyone who supports equality and tolerance. It's gotten to the point that being called a social justice warrior seems more like a badge of honor to me. The bitter irony that the people who oppose such activism self-identify as Christians is probably what galls me the most.
Posts
Relatedly enough, it's my experience that the websites that are making the most about proclaiming the end of their comment sections are ones that are unapologetically editorialized. Vice Motherboard is unabashedly progressive in their editorial stance; the risible part (the one that the comic is directly lampooning) of their post stating they are taking comments away was that replacing article comment sections with an email address and a curated "Letters" section was that the latter "buried" discussion while the former only highlights the best (the best, in this case, being... whatever Motherboard in its editorial capacity decides it is). It also shows that their understanding of comments sections is that they necessarily are designed for interaction between author and reader; I think that that sort of thing can be good, but comment sections are also for the benefit of others readers, such as being a quick reference for possible omissions, factual errors, or disguised editorial.
The New York Times recently had an article addressing how one of their online articles had rapidly shifted from a basic and somewhat-balanced outline to a more editorialized approach over the course of a day or two, and whether it was appropriate to allow the basic article to stand and write a follow-up article, or to replace their original reporting altogether as had occurred. For reference, the NYT position was that modern news consumers expect commentary along with their news, so rewriting the article over the course of a few days is to be expected. The reason I bring it up is twofold: firstly, the article addressing the reporting would have never happened if it weren't for commenters for the original article openly wondering what was going on as the article changed before their very eyes; secondly, the comments for the second article were not, to perhaps your and my surprise, a wasteland of troglodytes and harassers - most top comments were of the opinion that there are myriad other ways to get your news served to you alongside the opinion you want to hear, and that sort of thing isn't quite as expected from a paper of record like the NYT.
I'm sure the NYT actively moderates its comments, as well as giving commenters the ability to "vote up" insightful comments. I agree that if Motherboard thinks itself incapable of doing so, then leaving comments out might be a better approach, but I'm more hesitant to believe that it will foster "discussion" or more helpful criticism, and I absolutely don't think it will be to much benefit to readers. You're only going to see the commentary that Motherboard wants you to see now, and have the discussions Motherboard wants you to have. Oddly enough, that approach can work when you're as circumspect as the NYT or WSJ, but it isn't those kinds of publication that are doing this - it's ones that wear their biases on their sleeves, intermingle opinion with fact, and are quick to judge others and even quicker to turn defensive.
Maybe he could make an effort in the actual comic instead.
Yeah it's pretty sad that people are allowed to express their opinions.
Maybe they felt they did? I dunno, on rereading it, and the source, I can kind of see where it's coming from. The announcement from Motherboard that they're scrapping comments, but replacing it with 'something better: emails!', I can see how that reads like a ridiculous oxymoron. Like, if you want a discourse with your readers, have that. If you don't, then don't. I can quite imagine that's the thing that they're joking about. Have one or the other, but it feels silly to say "we're making it better!" and then go to something less direct and conversational.
How is something objectively subjective exactly?
I would also like to know who out there is being influenced by and taking to heart any of this "intellectual poison".... which they found in a comments section.
If you think comments are worthless, just say so and leave it at that. Clearly Jerry and Mike believe similarly, given their previous statements. And I'm inclined to agree in most cases. But the stated rationales are usually bogus.
Don't pretend that offloading your discussion elsewhere is some big benefit to your readers. And letters to the editor? Ha! You know most of those are going straight to the bin.
Personally, my preference is for comments sections to exist and for me to ignore them at my own discretion.
Nah. What's sad is when people express their opinion but expect no one to ever, dare I say, comment on it.
Argumentation and the marketplace of ideas is not a meritocracy and some people have lesser, more susceptible brains. Look up how the tobacco lobby operated or the psychology behind how climate science deniers seed doubt by repeating the same BS talking points and deceitful but not immediately unbelievable claims.
Then there is the slander and silencing campaigns furthered by "libertarians" who hate everyone who is not male, cis, pro-White, Judeo-Christian and conservative in their politics.
Like I said: objectively bad and good to remove or channel into swamps like hate-chan where the evil is distilled, goes unhinged and can't bother to present a friendly face, hampering its propaganda efforts.
A place on 4chan was in essence a completely unmoderated comments sections where a teenage loser built up enough bitterness and hate towards women to turn into a mass murderer, and they are hoping to foment more.
Funny how you say that about someone else having an opinion, no?
Edit:
I don't know. I think people who earnestly believe what they're saying will still go through a small hoop or two in order to tell the writers/editors what's on their mind. Getting rid of comments section won't drive away nearly as much constructive criticism as it will the troglodytes. Think of it this way: a closed door with a sign that says "Please Knock" will keep out a LOT of people that would otherwise simplpy walk through an open door, even if that door is unlocked.
Steam: pazython
Unmoderated comments often end up being the most heavily moderated comment sections out there, it's just that the "mods" are the commenters, not the admins. Without some sort of enforced rule about not being horrible, the loudest voices tend to band together to shout down everyone else and promote their singular viewpoint. Anyone who comes in with a different viewpoint is screamed out.
Smart moderation doesn't shut down open, useful discussion. It enables it.
So how does dog's blood compare to Charlie Sheen's tiger blood?
Steam: pazython
Wait, this last line here: are you saying that's the goal of people who demand "open discussion" at all costs, or Gabe and Tycho specifically?
That's a strange idea to me. Personally, I hunger for discussion and debate.
I tend not to take the low-minded into consideration for... well, for anything.
Don't think I've ever seen a "silencing campaign", merely people who wish to offer counter-arguments and express their feelings on a subject on equal ground and offer information to support it or debunk their opponents.
I believe everyone is entitled to the expression of their beliefs no matter how vile someone else may think they are.
You've lost me at this point. I don't understand how opinions can be objective and how "evil" websites that allow completely free speech and anonymity are bad.
I've never been a fan of thought-policing or authoritarianism.
Wasn't that this person's choice however? I don't believe in blaming others for the actions of individuals, unless they were directly coerced.
It's funny to have an opinion, about an opinion, about an opinion?
My point is, people should be allowed to say what they want, removing a comments section is effectively silencing rebuttals and discussion, in a way.
Good news then!
Yes, I'm aware of the board. I made a mistake however, I should have said "unmoderated discussion and debate". I dislike others stepping in and telling people how to act or present themselves.
Disagree. You're enjoying it right now!
This is why I've always enjoyed using a dedicated platform for discussion, some public.. place where people could post their thought on a subject. Kind of a catch all for topics and replies to those topics. Kind of like a bulletin board or public forum or something
But that's just crazy, I have no idea what you'd even call those
Are you saying you honestly wouldn't mind if I were to, say, be extremely verbally abusive to you in response to this?
Steam: pazython
The people on the 4chan board where the Oregon shooter whined about not getting laid. They're the ones trying to foment more mass shootings as we speak.
Yes, haven't you heard of the Old Testament?
I'm enjoying this?
Of course not, I would quite enjoy it. I enjoy hearing people's uncensored, raw thoughts and opinions.
Well that's just kinda sad.
I would mind.
I know you would, and I appreciate that. Which is why I phrased it as a hypothetical.
Steam: pazython
Yeah I'd misread what you were saying to be implying that M&J were advocating for more places like the chans.
As a shareholder in vox media I blame them for killing off their comments section because comments sections are good drivers of clicks
Anyway, back on topic: Discussion is good. Free speech is laudable. However, there is nothing stating that Motherboard needs to provide a venue for discussion, nor free speech. It would be nice, but they are ultimately under no compulsion to do so (the First Amendment guarantees free speech, but not the right to use someone else's privately-operated and owned platform for said free speech).
I can draw a comparison here to tech website The Verge (which is owned by Vox Media; unlike Vox itself, it actually still has comment sections), which turned off comments to most of its articles due to excessive trolling/shitposting that grew too toxic for even the (volunteer, mind you) moderators to handle. The userbase responded by moving discussion to the (on-site) forums instead, and frankly I think that the quality of discussion changed for the better. People actually *think* about what they want to say if they can't just spray their words on the lower half of the page, it seems.
I'm not saying that Motherboard's approach is good (if anything, it seems a little self-serving, and the justification is mealy-mouthed dissembling), but if the users want to have a place to discuss the articles, well, start one. There are plenty of platforms that allow for easy, nearly effort-free establishment of forums. Reddit still exists.
I admit I have a bad habit of hate-reading horrible internet comments, so I do sometime feel a twinge of "Aww, man" when I see a website doesn't have a comments section. But I absolutely understand the decision, no one is obligated to provide a forum for toxicity on their own web space.
I guarantee no one was checking the comments sections of these sites to learn the veracity of articles.
Yes, because when I want to find out if an article is on the up-and-up, I go seek the wisdom of FeministRaper69 and JewKiller420.
Steam: pazython
As for the discussion(s) being had;