Is shutting down the online comments section tantamount to censorship or not?

No. I find it odd that a newspaper would do such a thing – it’s just a curious approach to the dissemination of knowledge, but I don’t see it as censorship. The general public doesn’t have a legal right to comment on news articles; it’s a convenience or a privilege granted by the newspaper, which is owned by someone or something else. If the newspaper decides to no longer offer that, it’s certainly their right to do so.

And there are plenty of other places a person can express their opinion, ranging from a personal blog to Facebook and a thousand places inbetween.

Okay, I understand people have still other places, but how hard is it to have a comments editor and software that ensures the comments are free of just purely hatefull content? Isn’t computer technology responsible for all kinds of incredible things?

No. Newspapers are struggling as it is to stay in business. They probably can’t afford to hire someone to monitor comments full time. I actually called my local paper when they reported that a girl fell out of a moving car and hit her head and died. The amount of people that commented that she was stupid and needed to die was appalling. I felt so bad that her family may have read that during their grief. There is something wrong with people that have to make such comments on news stories. What does it add? Why do we have to know what someone thinks about a news story?

Certainly not. Censorship is the systematic suppression of material that reflects a particular ideology or point of view, by some authority that has the power to do that, such as making sure that nothing critical of a particular government can get published in that country.

No private enterprise owes the world a platform. You have a right to say what you want to say, but you don’t have a right to demand that some particular entity must publish it. Censorship would deny you the right to publish it anywhere. Some particular news outlet that doesn’t want to publish your comments is doing nothing to inhibit your expression or prevent you from airing them somewhere else.

Not at all. Have you ever read the comments at the end of newspaper articles? I don’t blame them in the least. They bring every nut job out of the woodwork.

Please, @flo, please read and then re read @Jeruba‘s post. In fact, I wish there was a requirement to be able to define and understand some words and concepts that are wildly overused on the Internet, two of which being references to the First Amendment and the concept of censorship.
Having a comments section is a courtesy, not some kind of “right”. Not having random strangers spew whatever opinions they might have is not censorship. It is not a violation of anyone’s right to free speech. It may simply be an avoidance of irrelevant clutter and distraction.

From my admittedly limited perusal of comments sections I have never found one shred of additional credible information on an article. The section is usually filled with innuendo, insults, and bile – not one productive or useful fact.
I use Ghostery on my browser and have it set to prevent redirects so I have not seen “comments” in ages. No loss.
There is no reason a site owner must pander to and pay for the spewing of a few noisy individuals. They are free to go elsewhere.

@LuckyGuy – I somewhat disagree. Many of the comments on the NYTimes website are quite worthwhile.

But then those are curated and selected,

”[H]ow hard is it to have a comments editor and software that ensures the comments are free of just purely hatefull content? Isn’t computer technology responsible for all kinds of incredible things?”

You would be surprised. The article alludes to the workload a human editor/moderator has, but if you want to have a better idea then try managing such a site yourself. The mods here at Fluther have it easy since, compared to many other sites, Fluther is relatively low-traffic and the people here are generally civilized. Yet even moderating a small site of well-behaved people is work.

If you want an idea of what moderators are up against, imagine trying to keep discipline someplace like /b. (That link actually is to /b, so click at your own risk; you have been warned!) If you don’t know what /b is well enough to grasp the relevance, then think of some other wretched hive of scum and villainy where rules are either weakly enforced or non-existent.

Could you spend 943 hours a day staring at the worst humanity has to offer? It really is that much work; Facebook has an unbelievable number of full-time employees on their payroll that do nothing else in order to split the load enough to keep each mod working a mere 8–12 hours per shift.

So no, having people do it is not feasible. The process would have to be automated… leading to other issues.

Computers may do things you see as “incredible”, but they have very sharply defined limits on things they just cannot do as well as capacity limits that we humans lack. A computer may be able to memorize the entire Library of Congress with ease, but it can’t understand a word of it. Computer are only really able to do four things, though they can do those things better than most humans; memorize large amounts of information, recall that information quickly and accurately (given proper search parameters), multitask, and perform numerical computations.

They lack the ability to make judgment calls, as anyone who has ever used autocorrect can attest. They also lack the ability to do anything that they are not explicitly designed to do through proper programming and use of peripherals. For instance, a computer without some form of camera cannot do anything visual like recognize faces or read facial expressions. True, something like a CMM that has no eyes but a very sensitive probe analogous to the pressure sensing nerves in our finger tips can touch an object in multiple places and “see” the same way a blind person can from mental images by touching something, but even that requires specialized hardware and software.

That software is quite complex too as the computer lacks the ability to extrapolate the way humans can, though proper programming can mitigate that to an extent by saying basically, “If data is incomplete, then assume [whatever].”. Humans don’t need to be told that, so we are FAR superior at dealing with unforseen things like a part being placed on the table more than a few microns out of position. The only reason I never slammed a tool into the table of a CNC mill is because I programmed it correctly. Incorrect programming, including parameters such at Tool Length Offset and work coordinate offsets relative to machine zero will crash the machine, and the machine is too stupid to know better so it would be my fault if it crashed in that manner. Some fancy CNC machines have probes like a CMM in order to do some things like check the position of the part/fixture and adjust offsets accordingly, but those machines have hardware and software that grants them that ability. Furthermore, those programs don’t automatically run (they must be explicitly called up and executed) and aren’t smart enough to handle situations outside their programming.

Now figure, if a multi-million dollar machine cannot think for itself well enough to perform just one task (cut material into a specific shape) that deals with purely unambiguous stuff like “Spindle speed is 3,000 RPM” without massive human oversight and supervision, what do you think it would take to get a computer that could do a wider variety of more complex tasks that involve ambiguity and uncertainty that would force the computer to make judgment calls? Given that computers are so literal, the programming required would be inordinately complex; complex enough that even the large number of people who have tried for decades still haven’t come up with anything much better than Siri. And that software would need some major-league hardware to run; something like a Tianhe-2 that costs $390,000,000 might not even be up for the task.

Sure, moderating the comments section is a smaller task than being a full-fledged human consciousness, but the main thing required for moderation is the hardest thing to get a computer to do; read comments, understand them with consideration given to context (basically disambiguation), and make a judgment call. Getting computers to understand natural language is a task that still eludes us. Even relatively smart computers require humans to alter their syntax; we have to meet the computer halfway. Oh, and gawd forbid that a speech recognition program has to deal with someone speaking Cockney!

So we can’t have a computer do it, at least not any better than rolling dice to decide whether any post is deleted regardless of content. While a computer may see nothing wrong with the phrase, “Your Mother.”, if you asked someone what they did last night and that was their response, context would make it offensive. It is not technologically feasible to expect every site with a comments section to plop down tens of millions of dollars on something that cannot do the job.

@everyone Okay let me take out the word “censorship”. It is being taken too legally.

There is a paraphrased statement from someone:
_People say “it’s impossible” It can’t be done”, “It’s ridiculous to even imagine it”
to people who brought up the idea of going to the moon, or plenty of previously “unimaginable” accomplishments. One person manges to accomplish x, y, z and and the” ones who can’t imagine it give a litenay of reasons why it can’t be done.

If you take the word “censorship” out of a question about censorship, what’s the question?

If a person says something or writes something on any public venue is it not more than only fair that people are given a chance to correct a factual error, and present a credible opposing position? Or how about agree with the author of the article but even add a lot more to it? How can such commentors be deprived of enriching us simply because of some hateful ones? Preventing the good as well as the bad is not a way to remove the bad. Removing the bad is the only way. It’s like it’s better to let many guilty people out of jail rather than 1 innocent person be in jail.

Does it have to get to the point of all magazines’ all newspapers’ comments section being shut down before it becomes something of concern?

Thank you for correcting me regarding the “1st amendment” and “censorship”.

@flo: In the case of newspapers and magazines that are discussing specific topics, if they are reputable, they have probably fact-checked with sources more reliable than random strangers on the Internet.
How old are you? Are you too young to remember the days of print media when there was no interaction, no comments, no random input?
They are not discussion fora. This is a discussion forum, as are Metafilter, Quora, etc.
There’s a difference.

Wait, @canidmajor—don’t forget letters to the editor! There was always a place in newspapers for comments from the public. It took a little effort to write a letter on paper and mail it, and then it was subject to a high degree of selectivity and judicious editing (neither of which, of course, amounts to censorship).

The ease and anonymity of the Internet make a mockery of that once-respectable forum for public dialogue. I don’t blame publishers for wanting to do away with the kinds of comments that news stories attract now. The sad thing is that they’re probably commensurate with what has happened to journalism itself in the wake of real newspapers.

Responsible editing is not and has never been censorship. But I do wonder how long it will be before there’s no one left who remembers the difference.

The difference between Letters to the Editor and online comments is so incredibly vast that I didn’t even think of them as being on the same planet. :-D

“If a person says something or writes something on any public venue is it not more than only fair that people are given a chance to correct a factual error, and present a credible opposing position?”

Define “public venue”. Just because the public has viewing privileges, that does not automatically make it a public venue. Anyone can read a newspaper, but that does not mean that they are obligated to even accept letters to the editor, let alone force them to print them.

The fact that the FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine back in 1987 adds another wrinkle, especially as the FCC has some say about the internet as well as TV and radio.

Also, what prevents one from just getting their own site to post their “rebuttal” and have their opinions heard? Back when we had merely passive media like newspapers and TV with only 3 networks, it was pretty difficult to spread your message without their cooperation. These days, anyone can not only post comments, but they can even have their own entire website.

The only thing that prevents people from hearing opposing viewpoints is that they don’t bother to do any sort of due diligence, and it’s a bit harder to find stuff when you aren’t looking for it. This of course leads to people knowing only what a narrow range of sources tell them as so many would rather get all their knowledge from a single source rather than take the effort to search for alternative points of view, but that is the result of reader laziness rather than anything like censorship.

@jerv Thanks a lot, Pal! I figured if jerv suggested a peek how bad could it be. So I clicked on the “b” link.
Oy! For this a few billion electrons had to die? Such a waste of Interwebz. Al Gore’s mother would be so ashamed.

I’m still shaking my head….

@LuckyGuy They’ve actually cleaned it up a bit in recent years; not as much kiddy porn as there used to be. And yet, in some ways, it’s still more civilized than Facebook. I’ve actually had a couple of death threats on Facebook—(hence why I genuinely fear right-wingers). By contrast, despite the fact that they are trollish enough to do things like start a convincing rumor that you can recharge your iPhone in the microwave, /b-tards are more inclined to merely call you a fag and dismiss you rather than threaten you.—

I don’t see that anyone has responded to my previous to last post except partial response from @canidmajor
” if they are reputable, they have probably fact-checked with sources more reliable than random strangers on the Internet.”
First of all no entity is reputable enough.
Should a politician be able to say “I no longer want anyone to ask me any questions, no one to challenge me about anything as soon as possible, right there at the time that I say things, because anyone can go on the internet and post a rebutal, .... ” Of course not. The writers of newspaper articles are not elected officials but for all intents and purposes they are influencial enough, they are talking to the public. With no comments section they would be free to only talk at the public. They are not gods. You make it sound like the writers are one breed of humans, i.e perfect.

Please post the links of articles under which it’s all vile comments I’ve never come across any like that. Most are kind of jokey, not at all helpful (off topic) etc. and some are hateful. but even if most are vile there are ways to minimize the number of those.

@flo: You seemed to have missed my point. The focus was on the phrase ”random strangers”. I have no reason to believe that a random stranger on the Internet is possessed of more accurate knowledge that a source I have already learned to trust.

@flo “I don’t see that anyone has responded to my previous to last post except partial response from @canidmajor”

Actually, I did. I even quoted part of it. Apparently you didn’t understand my answer though.

Since understanding the truth of the matter requires a bit of lateral thinking, I can understand why you would consider the ease with which one could publicize their opposing views irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I can also understand how one may not grasp the relevance of the FCC doing away with the Fairness Doctrine would apply to a question about the right to present opposing viewpoints for the sake of fairness in a medium that is regulated by the FCC, though that is only because I know that not everybody knows that the FCC regulates the internet and that the FCC used to have rules that required that opposing views be allowed to be heard.

“Please post the links of articles under which it’s all vile comments I’ve never come across any like that.”

Maybe this will show you the problem without me posting a link even worse than the one I posted above. If you read that and say, “What’s wrong with GIFs of violent rape?”, then there is zero chance of you understanding the issue.

The link I posted above to /b is pretty tame compared to what I’ve seen around, especially as 4Chan has cleaned up considerably under new management, yet it sent one person here running for eye bleach. I am not about to post something worse; it would likely violate Fluther’s ToS no matter how many warnings I put on it.

”...there are ways to minimize the number of those.”

Re-read the wall-o-text post I put up earlier, and then realize that what you’ve seen is what is left after moderation. If you haven’t run into one like that, consider yourself lucky that you only go to the cleaner, kinder sections of the internet, and remember that not all of us live in whatever utopia you’re in that lacks the sort of nastiness most of us have experienced. It seems that you are having trouble wrapping your head around the concept of there being a ton of nasty people on the internet. But whether it’s a Pollyanna-ish naivete or a sociopathic inability to understand why others may object to hate speech, we have answered.

If you don’t understand the answers, we will try to clarify upon request.

If you don’t like the answers you’re getting because they don’t conform with the way you think things should be though, then there is nothing we can do.

@canidmajor All these writers journalists and opinion columnsits were random strangers at one point.

@jerv Would Kim Jong-un and his cohorts would be taking notes in what kinds of excuses to use to opresss the population. *“You all are not smart enough, you all are too vile, ... here is an example, (show the absolute worst as an example)
He

oh, geez, @flo, do you believe that every comment on the Internet has merit? How incredibly naive one must be to think that opening up a comment section to every person will only attract the “writers, journalists, and opinion columnists”.
It’s not unfair to want to A) maintain site quality, and B) spend the budget on the quality of site content, not moderating idiocy.

Send them an email. Maybe they’ll publish it.

… Kim jong-un… taking notes from all you all. esp. your posts @jerv.

@canidmajor You are arguing that you want one source or much, much fewer sources of info or of opinion.

“Most are kind of jokey, *some are (added) not at all helpful (off topic) etc. and some are hateful. but even if most are vile there are ways to minimize the number of those.”*
That’s from my previous to last post. I guess it sounds like ”Every comment on the Internet has merit.”?

*“All these writers journalists and opinion columnsits were random strangers at one point.”*I mean they didn’t become someone you trust, all of a sudden, as soon as they got the the job at the newspaper, did they? If at least one of them was commenting before they got the job, would they have been unthrustworthy vile, idiots,

By the way about the Kim Jung-un, it would apply to you too. He would be happy to hear talk like that. He would hire at least some of you,. Not @elbanditoroso though, I don’t think.

No, @flo, I am not arguing that. You seem to be so wedded to the idea that that the value of a comment section outweighs all other considerations that you don’t want to hear valid reasons why a site would choose not to have them.
Never mind. I’m done.

@flo Considering that the average North Korean doesn’t have the options Americans do, it’s not really comparable. Try building a website in North Korea.

Of course, where to draw the line between public and private is a bit tricky, and many argue websites are private insofar as they are free to manage their site as they choose so long as it doesn’t violate certain federal laws, most notably those pertaining to inciting violence. And I don’t think that anyone can really fault a business for cost-cutting measures that affect all people equally unless said cost-cutting comes at the expense of anyone’s safety.

You’re also overlooking the fact that getting rid of comments sections blocks those who agree from voicing their support. And given how nasty some of the flame wars can get, a convincing argument could be made that removing comments sections actually makes the general public a bit safer. At worst, the site owners are free to decide that they don’t want to have that going on on their property much the same way that businesses are legally entitled to eject those who start a fight. If a mob of strangers barged into your living room and started hitting each other with crowbars, possibly with a couple of people pulling guns, how would you feel? Based on your comments here, it would seem that you would not only tolerate that, but actually WANT that.

What’s stopping you from getting your own site anyways? Domains are cheap to register, and you could get someone with the computer skills to design the site to your specs. If you don’t know anyone who would do it for free then it might cost you a little money, but given how many have worked so hard for so long to make computers accessible to those who are not tech-savvy, it’s unlikely that you would need to pay a dime so long as you’re willing to do a little searching to find the necessary tools.

Tell me, @flo, is your inability to rant freely wherever you choose an imminent threat to your physical well-being? If so, stop posting and call 911 right now; despite our disagreements, I’d hate to see you get hurt. If not, then rest assured that you can make yourself heard, even if you aren’t allowed to do the virtual equivalent of putting up signs in your neighbor’s yard or deface public property.

@jerv What a waste of words. Just go like this:
“On the other hand…..” Just argue the opposing side, my side. There is no reason why you can’t do that right, since this is just a discussion. I’m sure you won’t ask me to ask me to argue your side. Why? Because you don’t need it,

@canidmajor 1)You’re not arguing what?
2)”You seem to be so wedded to the idea that that the value of a comment section outweighs all other considerations that you don’t want to hear valid reasons why a site would choose not to have them.”
You mean you on the other hand are not wedded to your idea of __“prevent all the good ones too”_ ”Throw the baby with the bathwater.”?

@flo I thought this was a discussion, but your repeated blatant displays of stubbornness prove once again that you have no interest in actual exchange of ideas. You only want agreement, and you won’t get that around here.

There is only one way to respond to that.

Oh, @flo, now you’re just being silly. I don’t agree with your premise that anyone can say anything anywhere that they want simply because they want to. I made a not unreasonable suggestion (“send them an email”), which anyone is able to do. They read it, they decide whether or not it has merit and is worth publishing, they presumably don’t have to hire an extra person, and the rest of us don’t have to be subjected to it if it’s the kind of crap that shows up in comments sections.
As @jerv says, you seem to be averse to intelligent discussion on this point, and like a child on a playground, you want to stamp your little foot and yell “it’s not fair!”
You’re right. It’s not fair. It is, however, a reasonable business decision.

And I wish I had pushed the “unfollow” button, an oversight I will now correct.