"Publishers saw comment sections as a reputational hazard and a cost center and, by the middle of the decade, a dozen sites - including Popular Science, Chicago Sun-Times, Motherboard, Reuters, and NPR - had significantly reduced or completely disabled commenting features. Each argued, often without the data to back it up, that its readers preferred to discuss stories via social media. And so what was once heralded as a new frontier of reader dialog died a not-so-quiet death."
"After years of chasing social media engagement and being burned in the process, publishers have realized that commenting has a tangible value - to the broader public, yes, but also in terms of advertising and subscription revenue. The Washington Post relaunched its subscribers-only commenting platform in late 2024, promising "meaningful and high-quality discourse" as part of an effort to create "a space where diverse perspectives can connect, engage, and thrive.""
In the 2010s, many news publishers closed or curtailed comment sections after they became noisy, toxic spaces where bile and bad-faith arguments overwhelmed genuine discussion and skewed perceptions of journalism. By the mid-decade, outlets including Popular Science, Chicago Sun-Times, Motherboard, Reuters, and NPR had reduced or disabled commenting, often claiming readers preferred social media. A decade later, publishers are reinvesting in comments as a source of engagement and revenue, recognizing tangible value for advertising and subscriptions. The Washington Post relaunched a subscribers-only platform to foster higher-quality discourse, while the Financial Times deploys automated moderation to improve discussion quality.
Read at Nieman Lab
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]