why did CNN turn off its comments section?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
31,809
19,895
136
So all this time past you can not see the evil cults yet?
A. Neocons
B. ANTIFA
C. Marxists
D. So called Democratic Socialists.(No such thing)
E. Liberals who support A,B,C,D and abortion because it is not human.

I sound like a conservative but actually I am a centrist.
Thanks for the necro of a necro, compromised account.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fanatical Meat
Feb 4, 2009
31,884
12,266
136
So all this time past you can not see the evil cults yet?
A. Neocons
B. ANTIFA
C. Marxists
D. So called Democratic Socialists.(No such thing)
E. Liberals who support A,B,C,D and abortion because it is not human.

I sound like a conservative but actually I am a centrist.
3 years and that's your reply? Dude you need help
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
61,704
6,048
126
Not to mention all of the other 1 post accounts from 2014.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,605
9,383
126
Well, let's ask CNN, shall we?

But first, I'm going to guess it's because of Trolls and bots combined with social media being the forum of choice for discussion.

Now, allow me to google that for you instead of creating some vast conspiratard theory and running with it.

Oh look! CNN has explained why they, and many other news outlets are phasing out comment sections:

https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/tech/web/online-comment-sections/index.html

Online comments are on the way out.

Influential tech blog Re/code announced Thursday that it has shut off the comment forums on its story pages. Instead, the website is steering commenters to social media.
"We thought about this decision long and hard, since we do value reader opinion," co-executive editor Kara Swisher wrote. "But we concluded that, as social media has continued its robust growth, the bulk of discussion of our stories is increasingly taking place there, making onsite comments less and less used and less and less useful."
The announcement was just the latest in a recent wave of prominent websites removing or significantly scaling back their comment sections. Reuters, Popular Science and the Chicago Sun-Times have recently nixed comments.

Fairly or not, comment forums have gained a reputation as a haven for Internet trolls. Several of the sites that have banned comments noted the lack of civility in their decisions.
"As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide," read a Popular Science post from last September. "The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter."

Like Re/code, Reuters said social media was a factor when deciding to shut down most of its comments this month.

"Much of the well-informed and articulate discussion around news, as well as criticism or praise for stories, has moved to social media and online forums," a November 7 post read.

Other websites have opted to moderate comments more strictly rather than disable them altogether.

At the Gawker Media family of sites, which includes Gawker, Jezebel, Lifehacker, Deadspin and Gizmodo among others, most comments must be approved before appearing. The new system was rolled out after Jezebel's comment sections were flooded with animated GIFs of violent rape images.

"The mouth-breathing (expletive)s behind this deserve a reluctant congrats: A+ trolling job, many headaches induced, ruined a lot of peoples' days, etc.," Jezebel wrote in a post noting that the problem was being addressed. "You've given us a stunning example of just how unfathomably ugly the internet can be."

At CNN, comments on most stories were disabled in August. They are selectively activated on stories that editors feel have the potential for high-quality debate -- and when writers and editors can actively participate in and moderate those conversations.

Editors and moderators now regularly host discussions on CNN's Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Despite our best efforts to contain them, trolls are a persistent group and keep managing to slip through the gates.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,669
136
Well, let's ask CNN, shall we?

But first, I'm going to guess it's because of Trolls and bots combined with social media being the forum of choice for discussion.

Now, allow me to google that for you instead of creating some vast conspiratard theory and running with it.

Oh look! CNN has explained why they, and many other news outlets are phasing out comment sections:

https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/tech/web/online-comment-sections/index.html

Online comments are on the way out.

Influential tech blog Re/code announced Thursday that it has shut off the comment forums on its story pages. Instead, the website is steering commenters to social media.
"We thought about this decision long and hard, since we do value reader opinion," co-executive editor Kara Swisher wrote. "But we concluded that, as social media has continued its robust growth, the bulk of discussion of our stories is increasingly taking place there, making onsite comments less and less used and less and less useful."
The announcement was just the latest in a recent wave of prominent websites removing or significantly scaling back their comment sections. Reuters, Popular Science and the Chicago Sun-Times have recently nixed comments.

Fairly or not, comment forums have gained a reputation as a haven for Internet trolls. Several of the sites that have banned comments noted the lack of civility in their decisions.
"As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide," read a Popular Science post from last September. "The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter."

Like Re/code, Reuters said social media was a factor when deciding to shut down most of its comments this month.

"Much of the well-informed and articulate discussion around news, as well as criticism or praise for stories, has moved to social media and online forums," a November 7 post read.

Other websites have opted to moderate comments more strictly rather than disable them altogether.

At the Gawker Media family of sites, which includes Gawker, Jezebel, Lifehacker, Deadspin and Gizmodo among others, most comments must be approved before appearing. The new system was rolled out after Jezebel's comment sections were flooded with animated GIFs of violent rape images.

"The mouth-breathing (expletive)s behind this deserve a reluctant congrats: A+ trolling job, many headaches induced, ruined a lot of peoples' days, etc.," Jezebel wrote in a post noting that the problem was being addressed. "You've given us a stunning example of just how unfathomably ugly the internet can be."

At CNN, comments on most stories were disabled in August. They are selectively activated on stories that editors feel have the potential for high-quality debate -- and when writers and editors can actively participate in and moderate those conversations.

Editors and moderators now regularly host discussions on CNN's Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Despite our best efforts to contain them, trolls are a persistent group and keep managing to slip through the gates.
Thanks for the closure.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,587
136
The answer is too much liability and not enough benefit. Better just to offload the comments onto a 3rd party social media platform (like Facebook) than to have to deal with the cost and risk internally. Especially when the bulk of the high risk comments come from non-subscriber types (ie those who complain about bias because the editorial slant doesn't conform to their own bias) who are really just there to try to chase your actual customer base away.
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
31,884
12,266
136
So all this time past you can not see the evil cults yet?
A. Neocons
B. ANTIFA
C. Marxists
D. So called Democratic Socialists.(No such thing)
E. Liberals who support A,B,C,D and abortion because it is not human.

I sound like a conservative but actually I am a centrist.
Still no data, you promised data 4 years ago
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
5,698
6,013
136
speaking of CNN..

TIt seems, Trump went into a rage when he found Melania's TV on Air Force One tuned to CNN, and ordered henceforth all TVs will be tuned to Fox. Melania's spokeswoman says Melania can watch whatever she wants. Well, I'm sure that's not what the prenup says.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-melania-tv-cnn-air-force-one_us_5b583142e4b0fd5c73ca2a31

From what I've heard Trump watches multiple TV's at once. And presumably he wants to get Fox News anywhere in the world, even when there is no local carriage. I remember reading that he could only get CNN on his first big trip. Or..perhaps he has them pre-tuned to only get Fox, and the channel can't be changed. Not sure if that's even possible, especially since different hotels will have different cable providers. I'm sure though once Fox was on, you could devise a way to not change the channel without a password or something. Maybe he can get a chip installed in his head so he can pick up Fox anywhere in this world (or the next).

I'm visualizing Trump as Ozymandias, in his Antarctic preserve, dressed in his purple cap and weird tiara, petting his genetically modified giant Cat while watching an entire wall of TVs, all of them switched to Fox.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Too many comments that they perceive as negative drowning out the narrative they want to push. Remember what commies do when they don't like the feedback they're getting? Silence them. CNN is no different. I think even Washpo has turned off its comments now.

I'd love to see the day that Fox turns off its comments. Real conservatives don't censor dissenting opinions b/c we don't get as triggered as liberals (as proven by the study by USC). Science betrays liberals again.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,856
4,537
136
FoxNews at its core is an opinion driven media organization. Not a news organization.
Public comments are critical to Foxnews because its core audience are there for opinions. Not news.

CNN is a news organization at its core that has lots of editorial filler.

This thread started off with "i personally skip articles and go straight to the comments."
What does that tell you? (aside that the OP is a moron)
Some fool doesn't really care about news or facts or whatever else.
They are there to join a bandwagon. Any active comments section is filled with nonsense spewed by idiots or crap based on ignorance.

A comments section is a liability to any news organization because now that nonsense spewed in the comments are basically owned by that organization. The product shifts from "news and editorial" to the rambling bandwagon driven nonsense spewed by mindless masses. Public comments on news sites are waste of space and resources and CNN is correct in shutting that crap down. Especially in this era where comments sections are filled by "for hire content".
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
61,704
6,048
126
Real conservatives don't censor dissenting opinions b/c we don't get as triggered as liberals (as proven by the study by USC). Science betrays liberals again.
LOL.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-air-force-one-cnn-melania-leaked-emails-white-house-a8462526.html

Yes. Toddler in Chief rages as his wife watches something that isn't Fox news. What was that about dissenting opinions and triggered?

You do have something in common with Trump. There is a rebutting article or tweet for everything you say.
 
Last edited:

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
FoxNews at its core is an opinion driven media organization. Not a news organization.
Public comments are critical to Foxnews because its core audience are there for opinions. Not news.

CNN is a news organization at its core that has lots of editorial filler.

This thread started off with "i personally skip articles and go straight to the comments."
What does that tell you? (aside that the OP is a moron)
Some fool doesn't really care about news or facts or whatever else.
They are there to join a bandwagon. Any active comments section is filled with nonsense spewed by idiots or crap based on ignorance.

A comments section is a liability to any news organization because now that nonsense spewed in the comments are basically owned by that organization. The product shifts from "news and editorial" to the rambling bandwagon driven nonsense spewed by mindless masses. Public comments on news sites are waste of space and resources and CNN is correct in shutting that crap down. Especially in this era where comments sections are filled by "for hire content".
Regardless of your subjective views on comment sections, it is still endorsing free speech and furthering discourse. Our founding fathers' hopes wanted the general populace to review, discuss, and debate political topics of the day just as we're doing here. I think Al Gore's Assault on Reason book covered this really well if you want more history on how the internet is now filling the role that newspapers filled historically. Gore wrote the book around 2007 when the internet was in its infancy and his main concern was that one way communication via TVs/Radios were brainwashing the masses since they weren't interactive and gave campaigns an easy and predictable way to easily manipulate people. How does this relate to CNN and Washpo turning off their comment sections? They don't want people discussing, debating, nor criticizing their content. It's not surprising that they have no problems doing exactly what our founding fathers and even Al Gore wanted which allows for a healthy democracy.

On a related note, I give kudos to the mods here for allowing dissenting opinions in a private space. They could just take the CNN route and silence any dissenters. That's what makes AT forums stand out from the others I've been on and why I keep coming back. Also I have to give credit to a lot of the posters here, most of us have a lot of knowledge from a multitude of backgrounds regardless of how they deliver it (condescendingly, mockingly, etc). It's all part of learning and expanding your views, including dissenting, and then making a clear analysis of the facts and how they relate to a person's beliefs. Though some posters here have a clear rejection of facts and truth which is fine, b/c eventually reality will catch up with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vi edit

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91
FoxNews at its core is an opinion driven media organization. Not a news organization.
Public comments are critical to Foxnews because its core audience are there for opinions. Not news.

CNN is a news organization at its core that has lots of editorial filler.

This thread started off with "i personally skip articles and go straight to the comments."
What does that tell you? (aside that the OP is a moron)
Some fool doesn't really care about news or facts or whatever else.
They are there to join a bandwagon. Any active comments section is filled with nonsense spewed by idiots or crap based on ignorance.

A comments section is a liability to any news organization because now that nonsense spewed in the comments are basically owned by that organization. The product shifts from "news and editorial" to the rambling bandwagon driven nonsense spewed by mindless masses. Public comments on news sites are waste of space and resources and CNN is correct in shutting that crap down. Especially in this era where comments sections are filled by "for hire content".
So you're anti-comments on news sites?
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,856
4,537
136
Regardless of your subjective views on comment sections, it is still endorsing free speech and furthering discourse. Our founding fathers' hopes wanted the general populace to review, discuss, and debate political topics of the day just as we're doing here. I think Al Gore's Assault on Reason book covered this really well if you want more history on how the internet is now filling the role that newspapers filled historically. Gore wrote the book around 2007 when the internet was in its infancy and his main concern was that one way communication via TVs/Radios were brainwashing the masses since they weren't interactive and gave campaigns an easy and predictable way to easily manipulate people. How does this relate to CNN and Washpo turning off their comment sections? They don't want people discussing, debating, nor criticizing their content. It's not surprising that they have no problems doing exactly what our founding fathers and even Al Gore wanted which allows for a healthy democracy.

On a related note, I give kudos to the mods here for allowing dissenting opinions in a private space. They could just take the CNN route and silence any dissenters. That's what makes AT forums stand out from the others I've been on and why I keep coming back. Also I have to give credit to a lot of the posters here, most of us have a lot of knowledge from a multitude of backgrounds regardless of how they deliver it (condescendingly, mockingly, etc). It's all part of learning and expanding your views, including dissenting, and then making a clear analysis of the facts and how they relate to a person's beliefs. Though some posters here have a clear rejection of facts and truth which is fine, b/c eventually reality will catch up with them.
News organizations are not in the business of hosting unstructured public forums and that has nothing to do with free speech.
Its as simple as that.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,856
4,537
136
So you're anti-comments on news sites?
They are waste of resources and offer little value for a proper news organization. At best, they are a traffic generator.
There are already established platforms for unstructured open discussion.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY