The conventional wisdom about comments sections is that they are a liability: moderation costs, toxic behaviour, reader complaints. Most serious publications have either shut them down or moved the conversation to social media, where the problem becomes someone else’s.
I think this was a mistake.
Comments sections, when they work, are a direct channel between the publication and its most engaged readers. They are a place where the publication’s editorial decisions get tested in public — where readers who know things push back, add context, or flag errors. This is valuable.
Social media performs a version of this function but with crucial differences. The conversation happens on someone else’s platform, under someone else’s rules, in a context that mixes the publication’s readers with everyone else. The publication has no authority there and no relationship with the participants.
The failure mode of comments sections is real. Unmoderated or poorly moderated, they become worse than useless. But the answer to bad moderation is better moderation, not no moderation.
A publication that has given up on direct reader engagement has given up on something important about what it is for. The readers who care enough to respond are the readers worth having.
I am aware this is an unfashionable position. I hold it anyway.