It always seemed like whenever I would read a negative article, I could always read the comments and see how people really felt. This has been going on much longer than people can fathom.
Comments (268)
sorted by:
It always seemed like whenever I would read a negative article, I could always read the comments and see how people really felt. This has been going on much longer than people can fathom.
Not everyone used to get their letters to the editor published either; that was always at the proprietor's discretion.
As someone who loathes about 98% of what the fake news media has become, I also believe newspaper's etc were within their rights to limit comment under their articles under certain circumstances, as in many countries libel was being printed.
This is one reason that prompted limiting of comments.
But yes, another main reason was to spread their propoganda without question, no doubt whatsoever.
I began to really notice it where I am years ago, that, besides limiting comments that went against the narrative, any article that didn't have a comment section was frequently because the editors knew that what they'd just published was absolute guff, and knew they'd be torn apart in comments. So it was also a pride/shame thing.
Section 230 grants immunity from suits for user-generated content, so the argument doesn't apply to online comment sections.
"in many countries"....
Section 230 has no application outside the US
If you're hosting a website in the United States foreign law has no relevance.
NPR isn't going to shut down their comment section because Chinese law disallows speech.