Offline
A few years after the Toronto Star stopped accepting reader comments on their website, it appears they're back. But only on certain articles.
The Star has been allowing comments on its Facebook page, but had taken them off their main website a long time ago. I'm not entirely sure what the criteria is for when they open the lines of communication again, but the front page that was up at the time of this posting shows at least 6 stories that are accepting reader comments. The rest aren't.
It appears the ones that are there are marked by a small quote mark and pose a question to readers at the end of each piece - and readers are only able to answer those. It also requires signing in and apparently using your real name to leave your opinion.
Offline
Most news outlets don't have comments available on every story. Even Fox's excuse of a website doesn't have comments on everything. It's probably more of a staffing/cost issue than anything. I was glad to see the Globe and Mail bring back comments and of course National Post and CBC let people give their take on most stories. CNN is still a laggard and hasn't brought back comments other than some sports stories.
Offline
RadioActive wrote:
It appears the ones that are there are marked by a small quote mark and pose a question to readers at the end of each piece - and readers are only able to answer those. It also requires signing in and apparently using your real name to leave your opinion.
If that truly excludes trolls and bots and such from commenting, great!
Offline
grilled.cheese wrote:
I was all over the comment section during the Rob Ford mayoral campaign when he annihilated George Smitherman
Guess they realized that ... and you became toast?
Offline
Saul wrote:
RadioActive wrote:
It appears the ones that are there are marked by a small quote mark and pose a question to readers at the end of each piece - and readers are only able to answer those. It also requires signing in and apparently using your real name to leave your opinion.
If that truly excludes trolls and bots and such from commenting, great!
And it also discourages anyone with an opinion that doesn't agree with the officially approved narrative offered by the ((( newspaper ))) from stating it in the forum. You'd love it in Cuba. Trolls definitely not welcome in Raul's island paradise. And the weather is an upgrade over Toronto's.
Last edited by TomSanders (November 19, 2019 11:59 am)
Offline
TomSanders wrote:
Saul wrote:
RadioActive wrote:
It appears the ones that are there are marked by a small quote mark and pose a question to readers at the end of each piece - and readers are only able to answer those. It also requires signing in and apparently using your real name to leave your opinion.
If that truly excludes trolls and bots and such from commenting, great!
And it also discourages anyone with an opinion that doesn't agree with the officially approved narrative offered by the ((( newspaper ))) from stating it in the forum. You'd love it in Cuba. That's how things work down there. And the weather is an improvement over Toronto's.
They're hardly worried about people who are able to disagree without committing libel or slander or by being rude. Your sarcasm that I might like it in Cuba is probably a milder version of what they want to avoid.
Offline
TomSanders wrote:
it also discourages anyone with an opinion that doesn't agree with the officially approved narrative offered from stating it in the forum. Trolls definitely not welcome
Hmmm... Sounds VERY familiar. Doesn't that apply to every forum, including, yes, this one? As soon as someone (me) posts a contrary viewpoint.....
Offline
A wise man once stated that it's fine to disagree, but not to be disagreeable
Offline
Kilgore wrote:
A wise man once stated that it's fine to disagree, but not to be disagreeable
See, that's a polite way of calling someone a troll. It IS possible to disagree because that's what someone ACTUALLY believes.