Sometimes...

I wonder WTF is going on.

:dry: .... mouais ....

The people tired of being fed crap, and looking for what they want?

"Waking up"?

A good rule on the internet is 'never read the comments'.. If someone has bothered to log in to complain about the oscars, then they obviously want to be annoyed..

Edit: As to why the website doesn't allow comments on other stories.. if you read the comments on the stories they do allow them on, it's no surprise they're locked.

Of course on their own website they have their own house rules and are free to censor anyone as they please with and without those rules. Freedom of speech is not a concern, legally; though, granted, back when the legal framework was conceived something like the internet could not be predicted and it is high time the law be adjusted to the times and the challenges as they are today...

However, legality aside I shall pose instead a question like this: What does it tell us about the confidence and security of an entity over themselves and their content if they disallow public discourse of either, whatever results those may yield? Do we actually care to hear the ideas of those who not only don't care to hear ours but will indeed also do what they can to prevent the rest of their listeners to hear them?

Gisteron wrote: However, legality aside I shall pose instead a question like this: What does it tell us about the confidence and security of an entity over themselves and their content if they disallow public discourse of either, whatever results those may yield? Do we actually care to hear the ideas of those who not only don't care to hear ours but will indeed also do what they can to prevent the rest of their listeners to hear them?

If it was me I'd run a forum offsite in a clearly different setting from the stories, and link to it so discussions could be had there.... because at the moment it seems most of the comments are just added underneath the story itself, which is quite literally like letting the public continue on the story.

But corporations have an identity associated with its service/product and they are structured around that. News organizations more broadly are not generally interested in being public forums probably because I imagine it dilutes their own content to such an extent that they cannot effectively manage the brand's image, by that particular overlap. So while its tempting for them to use discourse to make their site popular, it also has risks for them.

Being I think the real problem in the OP is that social media commentators tend to merge and promote incongruent perspectives to make space for having an emotional tantrum, which seem to end up having either 1. like minded people get on board and they have a whinge session, or 2. get into an argument online. Neither of those two things bring any value and are probably not very attractive to a entity which 'should' be interested in accurate, concise and timely information delivery.

Do you really read all of the comments on YouTube until you forget the video they are posted under?

Do you think less of the video's author for the content of the comments his video received?

Allowing public discourse and letting it commence as it will does not do anyhing to devalue your content or damage your brand. Censorship does.

At the same time there is alot of idiots that post falsified content on places like Youtube and the comments are helpful in figuring out what is false and what is not. It also is a great method of finding other resources for information on the subject and learning from others opinions. Sure. Plenty of times when comments get crazy. But it can have its uses. I know I've found some interesting things when reading comments.

Gisteron wrote: Allowing public discourse and letting it commence as it will does not do anyhing to devalue your content or damage your brand. Censorship does.

But...

Edan wrote: A good rule on the internet is 'never read the comments'

While I don't agree with the censorship at all, it is true that comment sections and even many forums (including our own on occasion) become a playground for internet trolls or a soap box for people pushing any number of unrelated agendas.

Gisteron wrote: Do you really read all of the comments on YouTube until you forget the video they are posted under?

Do you think less of the video's author for the content of the comments his video received?

Allowing public discourse and letting it commence as it will does not do anyhing to devalue your content or damage your brand. Censorship does.

The OP was the BBC, which employs people to write content and distribute content in the same format as that which the comments are displayed.... so if they are on the same page and follow on from it then we have an overlap of message which the BBC for example would seek to have some control over - since it is its business model and brand. Without knowing what was censored it is difficult/impossible to make an assessment on what is being censored. I'm not sure why you bought up youtube unless its to avoid my point specifically, which it does being a different format, so if your post was in reply to mine I'd agree video sharing sites can easily have all sorts of opinions so long as they don't exceed whatever ethical boundaries they might have. So perhaps written news sources which target an adult audience might have stricter ethical standards then an open video sharing site - I think thats normal and to be expected. The new's shouldn't be what people think of the news, as that is just gossip to me.