NPR joins other news orgs banning comments from its stories

[zinfamous]

News sites should have the equivalent of "letters to the editor". You can't just shout instant feedback at a newspaper and have a comment appear magically on the printed page, but you can write to the editor on a story, and have it published.

I don't see why online sites can't operate the same way. Have a send comments to the editor entry, and have an editor (or team of people, whatever) pick comments to display on the site. It could simply happen much faster than with a newspaper article, and of course weed out most of the obvious trolls, most of whom would probably get bored as soon as their comments stopped appearing.

I agree with this, and it is often the most ...entertaining section in certain small-circulation rags.

The print version, at least, of the Berkeley Daily Planet is always a nice source of local yahoo flavor

 

[realibrad]

yup. This is why when worthless POS's like that Yannopolous(sp) dude gets banned off Twitter I don't shed a tear. Trolls are disruptive to Free Speech and Discussion, they forfeit their Right to Speech when they abuse it and Others.

Then you are not for free speech, you are for censored speech. I don't mean that in the pedantic way that if you are not for yelling fire in a room you are against free speech. I mean that you are against the idea that people should be able to say things that others disagree with. Abuse in terms of speech is very subjective.

This should be pretty obvious. There was a time that saying Blacks were equal to whites was far more offensive than saying women were unequal to men. Had we followed your rule and taken away the right for people to speak out and say something offensive, then who knows how much longer equality would have taken? Think about your stance and comment for more than a moment. Allow yourself to have some nuance about speech and what you find to be offensive speech. When you start to take away the right to be offensive, then you take away the power to speak out against injustice. By allowing people to be offensive, you open the door for feelings to be hurt and the ability to speak out against injustice.

Be and adult and learn to deal with those you disagree with. If you dont like Milo (many reasons not to) then don't follow him.

 

[openwheel]

Unfortunately the right are less educated, therefore unable to carry a meaningful political conversation. That's the biggest downfall of this country.

 

[zinfamous]

Then you are not for free speech, you are for censored speech. I don't mean that in the pedantic way that if you are not for yelling fire in a room you are against free speech. I mean that you are against the idea that people should be able to say things that others disagree with. Abuse in terms of speech is very subjective.

This should be pretty obvious. There was a time that saying Blacks were equal to whites was far more offensive than saying women were unequal to men. Had we followed your rule and taken away the right for people to speak out and say something offensive, then who knows how much longer equality would have taken? Think about your stance and comment for more than a moment. Allow yourself to have some nuance about speech and what you find to be offensive speech. When you start to take away the right to be offensive, then you take away the power to speak out against injustice. By allowing people to be offensive, you open the door for feelings to be hurt and the ability to speak out against injustice.

Be and adult and learn to deal with those you disagree with. If you dont like Milo (many reasons not to) then don't follow him.

This is not the same as pointing out that dangerous or useless speech, when presented on a news site, doesn't offer any real value towards the public good. There are and have always been places for newspapers to corral the opinions of the common, uninformed pleb--but linking those comments to specific stories is not useful and is no replacement for honest discourse.

Confusing the open access of unfiltered public opinion with censoring of free speech is a common fault of the right--something that I am coming around to accepting that a right-leaning individual is simply incapable of understanding. But this is why we have Fox News and now infowars and the like: It appears that the simple base need for confirmation bias and outright rejection of thought-challenge among the rabble has replaced the notion that informed thought is, quite truly, the actual intent of the First Amendment. But hey, as long as these hillbillies have that 2nd Amendment to protect what they believe (and only what they believe) the First Amendment to mean, then all is good, right?

 

[dainthomas]

Good. Comment sections are some of the worst parts of the internet.

 

[realibrad]

This is not the same as pointing out that dangerous or useless speech, when presented on a news site, doesn't offer any real value towards the public good. There are and have always been places for newspapers to corral the opinions of the common, uninformed pleb--but linking those comments to specific stories is not useful and is no replacement for honest discourse.

Confusing the open access of unfiltered public opinion with censoring of free speech is a common fault of the right--something that I am coming around to accepting that a right-leaning individual is simply incapable of understanding. But this is why we have Fox News and now infowars and the like: It appears that the simple base need for confirmation bias and outright rejection of thought-challenge among the rabble has replaced the notion that informed thought is, quite truly, the actual intent of the First Amendment. But hey, as long as these hillbillies have that 2nd Amendment to protect what they believe (and only what they believe) the First Amendment to mean, then all is good, right?

What in the world did you read to form a reply like that?

NPR shutting down comments is perfectly fine. I did not comment on that at all. Why would you make a response that implies a belief on my part that was never expressed?

What I said was that taking away someones right to free speech because they "abused" it is a dumb idea for the reasons I mentioned. At what point did you get that I think NPR did something bad? I would really like to know that. It sure seems that you read something I did not say.

 

[Chaotic42]

Not trolls, it is because of people disagreeing with main stream media.

Kinda difficult to push an agenda when readers call you out on it.

There's a huge difference in "I disagree, here's why:" and "ill ****ing **** u stupid ****head ****". People can't focus on rational discussion, even here. Look at how many people write things like M$ for Microsoft, Killary for Hillary Clinton, or Drumpf for Donald Trump.

 

[realibrad]

There's a huge difference in "I disagree, here's why:" and "ill ****ing **** u stupid ****head ****". People can't focus on rational discussion, even here. Look at how many people write things like M$ for Microsoft, Killary for Hillary Clinton, or Drumpf for Donald Trump.

I disagree - "There is a huge difference'
Here's why - "..."

A little bit ironic

Also, just because some people cant focus on rational discussion, does not mean others cant and it does not stop you from doing so. If you disagree with others speech, fine, but their speech does not stop your speech.

 

[Texashiker]

There's a huge difference in "I disagree, here's why:" and "ill ****ing **** u stupid ****head ****". People can't focus on rational discussion, even here. Look at how many people write things like M$ for Microsoft, Killary for Hillary Clinton, or Drumpf for Donald Trump.

Major outlets can print tilted stories, use keywords that pretend to be facts, leave out facts, but when they are called out on it people are trolling?

The authors of the articles are more subtle at their writing than post people.

 

[Texashiker]

Confusing the open access of unfiltered public opinion with censoring of free speech is a common fault of the right--something that I am coming around to accepting that a right-leaning individual is simply incapable of understanding. ?

LOL!!!! yea right, sure conservatives censor free speech more than the left.

Who was blocking the highways and causing violent protest at the RNC?

How many Republican conservatives caused problems at the DNC?

Go watch the documentary Indoctrinate U.

Universities limiting students to free speech zones.

Please explain how the left is open to free speech.

 

[realibrad]

LOL!!!! yea right, sure conservatives censor free speech more than the left.

Who was blocking the highways and causing violent protest at the RNC?

How many Republican conservatives caused problems at the DNC?

The Right is no more in favor of free speech than the left. If you doubt this, then tell me the group that wants to ban rap lyrics? Pro tip, it aint the left.

 

[ivwshane]

What in the world did you read to form a reply like that?

NPR shutting down comments is perfectly fine. I did not comment on that at all. Why would you make a response that implies a belief on my part that was never expressed?

What I said was that taking away someones right to free speech because they "abused" it is a dumb idea for the reasons I mentioned. At what point did you get that I think NPR did something bad? I would really like to know that. It sure seems that you read something I did not say.

The problem is that neither you or the person you originally responded to seem to know what free speech is. The right to free speech only applies between individuals and the government.

 

[Texashiker]

The Right is no more in favor of free speech than the left. If you doubt this, then tell me the group that wants to ban rap lyrics? Pro tip, it aint the left.

Free speech and dangerous speech are different things. Singing about killing cops and raping women should not be protected.

 

[jackstar7]

Then you are not for free speech, you are for censored speech. I don't mean that in the pedantic way that if you are not for yelling fire in a room you are against free speech. I mean that you are against the idea that people should be able to say things that others disagree with. Abuse in terms of speech is very subjective.

This should be pretty obvious. There was a time that saying Blacks were equal to whites was far more offensive than saying women were unequal to men. Had we followed your rule and taken away the right for people to speak out and say something offensive, then who knows how much longer equality would have taken? Think about your stance and comment for more than a moment. Allow yourself to have some nuance about speech and what you find to be offensive speech. When you start to take away the right to be offensive, then you take away the power to speak out against injustice. By allowing people to be offensive, you open the door for feelings to be hurt and the ability to speak out against injustice.

Be and adult and learn to deal with those you disagree with. If you dont like Milo (many reasons not to) then don't follow him.

I love love love how you try to short-circuit the reply about your pedantry by just saying that you're not being a pedant, when in reality, that's all you have proven to be time and again.

The sad part is that as has been pointed out, you don't know what you're talking about, but you insist on parsing things to fit your obtuse persecution narrative.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Free speech and dangerous speech are different things. Singing about killing cops and raping women should not be protected.

Well gee, I was just about to say how no one of consequence has given a shit about song lyrics since the time of Tipper Gore, and that the issue was completely dead today, but then you had to go prove me wrong.

I'm not sad about comment sections being removed from many news sites tbh. I thought NPR moderated them decently but maybe I'm wrong, and the NYT actually has relatively decent quality-control on their comments, but I can understand why a lot of websites don't want to bother with it.

 

[disappoint]

There's a huge difference in "I disagree, here's why:" and "ill ****ing **** u stupid ****head ****". People can't focus on rational discussion, even here. Look at how many people write things like M$ for Microsoft, Killary for Hillary Clinton, or Drumpf for Donald Trump.

One of these is not like the others. His name was actually Drumpf before he changed it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I thought his ancestors changed it?

 

[Chaotic42]

One of these is not like the others. His name was actually Drumpf before he changed it.

It was changed in the 17th century

 

[disappoint]

I thought his ancestors changed it?

When I said "he" I never specified who I was referring to. That was no accident. Yes you are right it was one of Donald Trump's ancestors who changed the family name.

 

[realibrad]

I love love love how you try to short-circuit the reply about your pedantry by just saying that you're not being a pedant, when in reality, that's all you have proven to be time and again.

The sad part is that as has been pointed out, you don't know what you're talking about, but you insist on parsing things to fit your obtuse persecution narrative.

Except that unlike the person I responded to, and you for that matter, I make a claim and then explain my stance. By giving you my explanation, you have the ability to show where I am wrong. Instead, you and many others simply say I am wrong and do nothing to explain why.

Also, where are you seeing a persecution narrative that I am pushing? I did not say that NPR did anything wrong here. I don't think that what NPR did hurts free speech either. What I do believe that sandorski is wrong for the reasons I listed. Again, because I explained myself in my post you should easily be able to show where I am wrong. Instead of attacking my point, you accuse me of things that you believe discredit my argument. My guess is that you don't have an argument that is better and or you cant point out where I am wrong, so its much easier to attack something else.

Feel free to explain yourself.

 

[realibrad]

When I said "he" I never specified who I was referring to. That was no accident. Yes you are right it was one of Donald Trump's ancestors who changed the family name.

Lol you are being dumb. The context established the person you are referring to. It was clearly established that Drumpf was used for Donald Trump. "People can't focus on rational discussion, even here. Look at how many people write things like M$ for Microsoft, Killary for Hillary Clinton, or Drumpf for Donald Trump."

You used HE as a Pronoun not a Noun.
"used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified."

This is an internet forum for a tech site. Suck it up and admit you were wrong in what you said. Its not that big of a deal.

 

[disappoint]

Lol you are being dumb.

Your wrong.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

When I said "he" I never specified who I was referring to. That was no accident. Yes you are right it was one of Donald Trump's ancestors who changed the family name.

lmao, best defense I've seen on this forum in a while.

 

[realibrad]

Your wrong.

I am wrong about you being dumb with your post, or am I wrong that you cant say that HE can mean someone not previously mentioned?

Again, you cant use HE as a pronoun if the person had not been brought up before. That is the definition of HE. Its okay to say something wrong. You wont get into trouble.

I also just noticed that you used the wrong your, but don't let that detract from the fact that you used HE incorrectly if you meant to bring up someone other than the D.

 

[Vic]

Shitting disrespectfully all over news articles where someone died, or ranting your opinions about illegal immigration in every news article that includes a Hispanic-sounding name, or spewing profanity and threats at anyone who doesn't agree with you, is not free speech. It's just being a douchebag troll.
These media outlets have been incredibly generous in providing their private space for public comments and, unfortunately, much of that has been abused by idiots who wouldn't know the 1st amendment from a hole in their own head.