Whoops, Websites Realize That Killing Their Comment Sections Was A Mistake
from the talk-about-it dept
So for years we pointed out how the trend of news websites killing off their comment section (usually because they were too cheap or lazy to creatively manage them) was counterproductive.
One, it killed off a lot of local community value and engagement created within your own properties. Two, it outsourced anything vaguely resembling functional conversation with your community — and a lot of additional impressions and engagement — to generally shitty and badly run companies like Facebook.
That not only made public discourse worse, it ignored that the public comment section (and the correction and accountability for errors that sometimes appeared there) were helpful for the journalistic process and ultimately, the public interest.
Anyway, more than a decade later and Ben Whitelaw from Everything in Moderation (and Mike’s co-host on the Ctrl-Alt-Speech podcast as well as a former editor at the Times of London in charge of the paper’s user comment section) notes that many websites and editors have had second thoughts.
A growing number of websites, burned from an unhealthy relationship with Facebook (a company too large and incompetent to function), are restoring their online comment sections, looking to automation to help with moderation, and are trying to rekindle functional, online discourse.
He does a nice job pointing out many of the benefits of on-site public comment sections that were ignored by editors a decade ago as they rushed to relieve themselves of the responsibility of trying:
“Most journalists whose articles face criticism below the line may be surprised by the following statement: people who post a comment are more likely to return to the site and be loyal to the brand, even if the comment isn’t glowing praise.“
When editors, circa 2010-2015, announced they were killing their comment sections, it was usually accompanied with some form of gibberish about how the decision was made because they just really “valued conversation” or wanted to “build better relationships.”
Sometimes newsroom managers would be slightly more candid in acknowledging they just didn’t give enough of a shit to try very hard, in part because they felt news comments were just wild, untamable beasts, outside of the laws of physics and man, and irredeemable at best. Often, this assault on the comment section went hand in hand with editors hostile to the public generally (see: the New York Times’ still criticized 2017 decision to eliminate the role of Public Editor.)
The rush to vilify and eliminate the comment section ignored, as Ben notes, that a subscription to news outlets doesn’t just have to provide access to journalism, it can feature participation in journalism. As an online writer for decades, I’ve seen every insult known to man; at the same time I’ve routinely seen comment insight that either taught me something new or helped me correct errors in my reporting that both I and my editors missed.
The obliteration of the comment section threw that baby out with the bath water. Facebook comments are, if you haven’t noticed, a homogenized shit hole full of bots, rage, and bile that undermines connection and any effort at real conversation. These sorts of badly run systems are also more easily gamed by bad actors (like, say, authoritarians using culture war agitprop to confuse the electorate and take power).
More localized on-site comments are, as Ben notes, potentially part of our path out of the modern information dark ages:
“Within the shifting environment that digital publishers have found themselves in, it’s vital to reckon with the needs of news-consuming audiences beyond timely information. People are eager to connect and have real dialogue about topics that inform their lives. Comment sections need to change, but I think they can serve a vital role.”
Of course, it’s hard to repair ye olde comment section when modern journalism itself is suffering from so much institutional rot. But you’ve got to start somewhere. And rekindling a smaller, highly localized relationship with your regular visitors is as good of a place to start as any.
Filed Under: comment section, discourse, editors, facebook, journalism, politics, websites


Comments on “Whoops, Websites Realize That Killing Their Comment Sections Was A Mistake”
Often, this assault on the comment section went hand in hand with editors hostile to the public generally(see: the New York Times’ still criticized 2017 decision to eliminate the role of Public Editor.)
The Times still has comments.
Re:
But who’d know? Some years ago, the paywall got really aggressive, and they shut down the Onion Service work-around.
Is there irony in the urge for me to shitpost in the comments on this one?
Re:
Frankly, I’d be kind of disappointed in our regular commenters if they didn’t take the chance to Zeeky Boogy Doog.
Re: Re:
captain_america_pointing.png
This article was only so-so.
I’ll check back later to see if I’m in the running for funniest or most insightful comment of the week, and then keep checking every other article for my competition.
Re:
Uh huh.
There’s some engagement for ye.
If you won’t listen to your readers, why would they listen to you?
And Microsoft absorbs Ubisoft in 3…2…1…
Off topic, but that’s what I love about this comment section (though I was gonna say “about this community”?)
Long live Techdirt!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
….techdirt has effectively killed their comment section.
Comments appear anywhere from 3 or 4 hours to a day later.
Some comments don’t go through.
MM has enabled a “heckler’s veto” so any comment the far left readers disagree with is quickly blocked.
The irony.
Re:
No, there’s plenty of life in the comments. That you don’t like what the comments say doesn’t mean it’s dead.
If you’re a spammer, sure. I very rarely don’t see my comments appear immediately.
I’ve never experienced that.
The comments that are hidden, not blocked, tend to be made by bots or people who don’t understand reality. That’s not a heckler’s veto. That’s self-moderation.
There have been plenty of disagreements in the comments on this site that didn’t lead to someone having their comments hidden.
Re: Re:
As one of the site’s most prolific commenters (for better or for worse): Even I occasionally trip the spamfilter, but it takes maybe a few hours at most for my comments to eventually be let through. Anyone who complains about it taking “days” is either exaggerating about the length of time or trying to downplay exactly why their comments are getting held back.
And that besides: The Techdirt admins have every right to decide whether a comment is let through the spamfilter. Exactly zero people have a protected inalienable right to post here unless they own/operate the site.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s really, really long and exceptionally unusual.
They have every right to have shit site, yes.
Decline is a choice.
Re: Re: Re:2
Not…really? The admins aren’t watching the site 24/7, after all. Sometimes I leave a comment at night that gets caught by the filter and it won’t be pushed through until the next day. Shit happens, yo.
And it’s a choice they have every right to make. Don’t like it? Door’s to your left. 👋
Re: Re:
I actually agree with you here.
Probably because you have an account. As an AC, it seems like all posts tend to be held for moderation.
Yes, he was wrong in that they are hidden and not blocked. But, people here do tend use the flag as a “disagree” button a bit much for my taste, rather than saving it for the “abusive/trolling/spam” posts it says it’s for.
Re: Re: Re:
This particular individual who complains are always trolling because he couldn’t hack the reality of constantly being proven wrong. He also thinks he’s the smartest person in the room while not understanding how the spamfilter works and that the flagged messages must be manually cleared before showing up – ie someone has to take the time to go through the moderation queue and this entitled ass has this notion that people doing it have the time to do it 24/7.
Re: Re:
It’s not my place so I don’t want to comment on their moderation too much, but FWIW the experience is very different between being signed in vs not. When I used the non-signed in option moderation/post vanishing thing happened to me quite a lot. After swapping to a signed in account it basically never happens. (That said, posts getting eaten was very clearly a bug).
Depending on the type of disagreement, it sometimes ends up being used as a downvote button. It mostly works fine though (especially with respect to trolling), and realistically it’s more or less what you’d expect out of any sort of mass moderation system.
Worst example
I think the worst example of this is The Intercept, which invites readers to “Join the conversation” on X.
Re:
They went rapidly downhill some time ago,and failed to provide anything to keep me checking back after a while.
Their comment section was always contemporary X-level anyway.
… and you are by far the #1 Regular Commenter here !
surely you have substantive comments to offer on the actual topic of this TD post ??
It’s as stupid as the pivot to video where costs went up and traffic was driven to platforms the publishers of the content had no control over, and barely profited from. The MBA’s in charge thought they could cut costs by shifting all interaction with their content to Twitter and Facebook and add paywalls, but still maintain the ad revenue somehow, and definitely didn’t think about those platforms doing their best to block external links down the line.
I’ve been reading for a few years, and this article made me want to take the plunge and make an account.
Look out, The Discourse, here comes meeee.
One example of such a website is TorrentFreak.
Not to dunk...
Is this like a challenge??? “…helped me correct errors in my reporting that both I and my editors missed.”
Hearst newspapers
Relatively recently, Hearst newspapers without explanation ditched online comments on articles. The paper that I was subscribing to at the time, the Houston Chronicle, had far more constructive comments than otherwise, including corrections that the writers incorporated before the article appeared in the print version. I switched to the Austin American-Statesman after it was acquired by Hearst to find that they were only going to print letters to the editor two days a week! (Before Hearst acquired the paper, it was owned by USA Today, Inc., was thus brain dead, and only printed letters on Sunday.) At least at the Chronicle letters were printed every day and they would actually print my letters, albeit with excessive editing.
AI to the rescue!
All of their commenters can be replaced with AI. Now, another raise for the CEO. Huzzah!