Wall Street Journal now censoring reader comments to articles

[GHOSTUSER 361]

I have a subscription to both the NYT and WSJ. They’re both good newspapers with different philosophies and world views (No CR) and I read both because I mainly read op-Eds and want both perspectives. I prefer the WSJ because it hews closer to my beliefs; however, I really like it more because you could comment on every article. The WSJ reader comments were a gold mine with some really funny, intelligent posts and lots of sarcasm by people I identify with - namely highly intelligent, conservative (No CR) professionals. Lots of funny digs at the President, current political figures, etc. I have always thought the most liked commentary represented the silent majority in this country or really the the segment of the population that really matters the most.

Well, they have changed things yesterday. They are flagging and censoring comments and are not allowing any comments at all on lots of articles. This is the letter I received from them yesterday:

Elevating Our Discourse Dear Iconoclast Texan,  Our readers like active engagement with the news. We have heard from you that you strongly desire a place to read a variety of audience perspectives, that you want posts that are thoughtful and, also, that you would like an environment in which you feel comfortable to share your own insights. In interviews and surveys of our membership and the broader public, people say they would like to contribute to audience conversations on our web site but that they have, over time, become turned off by the growing toxicity that is rampant all over the Internet.  We want our web site to lead the way in pushing for elevated discourse. This week, we are introducing initial steps that will pave the way for audience conversations that more of you may be interested in reading and perhaps in contributing to. We will have more steps and new features in coming months. We welcome your feedback and you can write me at the below email address.  News thrives when it lives amid a conversation between journalists and the public, and amid conversations among readers themselves.  Thank you for feedback and hope you will join more of our conversations on WSJ.com.  Matt Murray  Editor in Chief  m.murray@wsj.com The Five Most Significant Changes: Only WSJ members can participate To keep discussions free of objectionable content streaming in from outside the WSJ community, the audience conversation feature will now be an exclusive benefit for our members.

Audience Conversations will only be available on certain articles and for a set amount of time To give both our members and WSJ editors the ability to focus on the day’s top stories, we will be limiting the number of open articles and closing discussions after 48 hours. You will be able to find articles with open conversations in a featured box on the bottom of all articles on our site.

We’ve strengthened our moderation and will highlight exemplary responses We’ve improved our moderation process to better enforce existing policies. We have hired additional journalists to engage with the Audience Conversation to enhance the free expression of ideas and foster civility in our community. Thoughtful postings will be regularly selected and highlighted within stories to further amplify your voices.

All open articles will include a question To facilitate thoughtful and meaningful discourse, a WSJ reporter will initiate the discussion with a question. This will help keep comments on point and give members the ability to interact with our journalists.

We've set up an email alert system We are committed to transparency and created a system to immediately notify members when comments are approved or rejected. For more information, you can read our updated  Community Rules and FAQs.

These fucking changes suck ass. Reading the WSJ comments was one of my favorite pastimes. Making snarky comments and making comments about Islam are now verboten (no CR). Because CR is such a shitty place filled with people who neg if you do not follow the orthodoxy there, WSJ was my release valve. I don’t have that now because they want to silence voices like mine. I don’t know what I’m going to do now. Fuck “elevating discourse”. It means silencing those voices that disagree with the MSM.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[Bat Guano 359]

Sounds like you were part of the problem.

[David Dennison 18608]

They are a private business. They don't have to let you voice your displeasure at all.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Just now, Bat Guano said:

Sounds like you were part of the problem.

Yes now digs like Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Alexandria Occasional-Cortex are blocked. I haven’t tried to see if great quotes like this one from Churchill can get through:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

[GHOSTUSER 361]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They are a private business. They don't have to let you voice your displeasure at all.

Check out how these new rules are being received. Everywhere we can still comment, people are ripping into the WSJ and threatening to cancel their subs.

[CycleTex87 2953]

Got the same letter and felt the same thing.

[David Dennison 18608]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Yes now digs like Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Alexandria Occasional-Cortex are blocked. I haven’t tried to see if great quotes like this one from Churchill can get through:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

You might want to read up on the history of Christianity.

[El Diablo 4232]

Start your own paper, you have my blessings.

[Huckleberry 32685]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Yes now digs like Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Alexandria Occasional-Cortex are blocked.

Yeah, it's a real mystery where this decision came from.

[Royalfan5 2344]

Are you interested in the actual journalism, or just demanding more soapboxes for yourself? The don't print every letter to the editor either. 

[ajax 2586]

Just get the Dissenter plug-in. Problem solved.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

6 minutes ago, ajax said:

Just get the Dissenter plug-in. Problem solved.

Tell me more. What is Dissenter? There was this one comment I read recently that had my laughing at my desk at work. It was a play on Democrats (Dhimmicrats) when referring to one of the new Muslim members of Congress. I thought that was funny as shit. I pay $40 a month for the WSJ. I read the NYT comments too. If they limit what you can comment on like the NYT what’s the point of subscribing to the WSJ. I will just get the Times which is cheaper.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[TornACL 7673]

WSJ's opinion site has gone to the dogs. 

Occasionally I'll see WSJ on twitter touting some op-ed that is clearly insane and written by some uneducated lunatic. Basically they'll let any anti-intellectual poo-flinger op-ed under their cover in the name of pageviews. 

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

14 minutes ago, Royalfan5 said:

Are you interested in the actual journalism, or just demanding more soapboxes for yourself? The don't print every letter to the editor either. 

It was something that we all had that was taken away. I’m not the only one bemoaning the changes. I prefer the WSJ both for the conservative bent of the Editorial Board AND the WSJ commenters. It was a wonderful symbiotic relationship between my beliefs and reinforcement and affirmation received by the commenters.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[Brisketexan 104465]

Huh.  Interesting.

I value decent human behavior and civility in my home.  I regularly invite people into my home and host them.  I haven't ever had to post a warning or anything, but folks know that acting like a dick will result in you being asked to leave.  I'm not stupid, so nobody tries the idiotic "but I was just quoting some otherwise respectable person!" gambit to get away with being a dick.  I don't care who the fuck you're quoting, the best people in the world have all said and done some loathsome things.  The pope may have called his mom a cunt, and said that all women are cunts in a teenage termper tantrum -- I don't care.  If you say "all women are cunts" and "I was just quoting the pope," you'll still be asked to leave.

There are plenty of civil discussions to be had.  Just because you either forget how to do so, or never knew how to do so, gets you zero slack.  Learn how to.  It's about damned time that civility be treated as a social value again, and it's utterly appropriate that private spaces are the folks to bring it back.

Championing internet comment sections isn't painting you or anyone else in a positive light.  The cesspool of anonymity renders the marketplace of ideas inefficient.  If it's an idea that is SO important and worth stating to you, then it's one that you should be happy posting on your professional website, and having your business card as a signature.  If the world imposed that rule, I expect that the cesspool-type comments would go way down.

You were flinging poo and getting it on the WSJ's walls.  They told you to stop.  If you really want to keep flinging shit, do it in your own room. 

[ajax 2586]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Tell me more. What is Dissenter? There was this one comment I read recently that had my laughing at my desk at work. It was a play on Democrats (Dhimmicrats) when referring to one of the new Muslim members of Congress. I thought that was funny as shit. I pay $40 a month for the WSJ. I read the NYT comments too. If they limit what you can comment on like the NYT what’s the point of subscribing to the WSJ. I will just get the Times which is cheaper.

https://dissenter.com/

They have their own servers, so content providers can't do anything about it. With the extension, you can comment right on the website without navigating away.

 

[David Dennison 18608]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

It was something that we all had that was taken away. I’m not the only one bemoaning the changes. I prefer the WSJ both for the conservatives bent of the Editorial Board AND the WSJ commenters. It was a wonderful symbiotic relationship between my beliefs and reinforcement and affirmation received by the commenters.

You'll get over it.

[tucker 238]

When Reddit started to censor out the trolls, you had the same outrage. Ultimately, it elevated the conversation. 

I believe most platforms will move to only verified users can comment given the prevalence of trolls, fake accounts, etc. 

[Js1 85056]

A whole thread about why a piece of shit can't be a piece of shit on the internet.

Boo hoo. 

[Brisketexan 104465]

Just now, Js1 said:

A whole thread about why a piece of shit can't be a piece of shit on the internet.

Boo hoo. 

It's actually kind of perfectly meta.

[oSuJeff97 3435]

15 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Yes now digs like Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Alexandria Occasional-Cortex are blocked. 

I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm.

Are you saying these "digs" fall under the category of "clever" or "funny" or "interesting?"

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

2 minutes ago, TornACL said:

WSJ's opinion site has gone to the dogs. 

Occasionally I'll see WSJ on twitter touting some op-ed that is clearly insane and written by some uneducated lunatic. Basically they'll let any anti-intellectual poo-flinger op-ed under their cover in the name of pageviews. 

 

That’s like your opinion man. Isn’t the WSJ the most profitable newspaper in this country? If not they better be. They’re a lot of people like myself who enjoyed things as they were. Trying to gain favor of someone with your worldview, even though you’ll always choose the Times instead, doesn’t seem like a wise move. The loss is even more acutely felt for me because the CR is such a shithole and there isn’t a release valve there. I don’t want to be negged and personally attacked for my views.

[SimonBolivar 10898]

38 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I have a subscription to both the NYT and WSJ. They’re both good newspapers with different philosophies and world views (No CR) and I read both because I mainly read op-Eds and want both perspectives. I prefer the WSJ because it hews closer to my beliefs; however, I really like it more because you could comment on every article. The WSJ reader comments were a gold mine with some really funny, intelligent posts and lots of sarcasm by people I identify with - namely highly intelligent, conservative (No CR) professionals. Lots of funny digs at the President, current political figures, etc. I have always thought the most liked commentary represented the silent majority in this country or really the the segment of the population that really matters the most.

 

 

Geez like yourself much?

[David Dennison 18608]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

That’s like your opinion man. Isn’t the WSJ the most profitable newspaper in this country? If not they better be. They’re a lot of people like myself who enjoyed things as they were. Trying to gain favor of someone with your worldview, even though you’ll always choose the Times instead, doesn’t seem like a wise move. The loss is even more acutely felt for me because the CR is such a shithole and there isn’t a release valve there. I don’t want to be negged and personally attacked for my views.

Snowflake.

[tucker 238]

3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

That’s like your opinion man. Isn’t the WSJ the most profitable newspaper in this country? If not they better be. They’re a lot of people like myself who enjoyed things as they were. Trying to gain favor of someone with your worldview, even though you’ll always choose the Times instead, doesn’t seem like a wise move. The loss is even more acutely felt for me because the CR is such a shithole and there isn’t a release valve there. I don’t want to be negged and personally attacked for my views.

You deserve to be personally attacked given your views are racist and shitty. You still have infowars and dailycaller to spew your hate.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Huh.  Interesting.

I value decent human behavior and civility in my home.  I regularly invite people into my home and host them.  I haven't ever had to post a warning or anything, but folks know that acting like a dick will result in you being asked to leave.  I'm not stupid, so nobody tries the idiotic "but I was just quoting some otherwise respectable person!" gambit to get away with being a dick.  I don't care who the fuck you're quoting, the best people in the world have all said and done some loathsome things.  The pope may have called his mom a cunt, and said that all women are cunts in a teenage termper tantrum -- I don't care.  If you say "all women are cunts" and "I was just quoting the pope," you'll still be asked to leave.

There are plenty of civil discussions to be had.  Just because you either forget how to do so, or never knew how to do so, gets you zero slack.  Learn how to.  It's about damned time that civility be treated as a social value again, and it's utterly appropriate that private spaces are the folks to bring it back.

Championing internet comment sections isn't painting you or anyone else in a positive light.  The cesspool of anonymity renders the marketplace of ideas inefficient.  If it's an idea that is SO important and worth stating to you, then it's one that you should be happy posting on your professional website, and having your business card as a signature.  If the world imposed that rule, I expect that the cesspool-type comments would go way down.

You were flinging poo and getting it on the WSJ's walls.  They told you to stop.  If you really want to keep flinging shit, do it in your own room. 

Really. How do you explain the treatment I have received in the CR at surly. I’m not the only one, all of us on the right have. I have refrained from posting there for Lent. It’s been much better for me as it’s reduced the hatred and vitriol that would arise in my heart from the shit flinging. Take a look at my previous posting history there if you have time. I linked a lot of articles from the NYT and WSJ with my spin on them. No unprovoked personal attacks on my end. I’d get called out with epithets saying I’m a liar or have my addiction which I’m clean for years now thrown in my face. That didn’t happen at the WSJ and I enjoyed laughs from the regulars there. They took that from me and the rest of the crew there.

[David Dennison 18608]

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

Really. How do you explain the treatment I have received in the CR at surly. I’m not the only one, all of us on the right have. I have refrained from posting there for Lent. It’s been much better for me as it’s reduced the hatred and vitriol that would arise in my heart from the shit flinging. Take a look at my previous posting history there if you have time. I linked a lot of articles from the NYT and WSJ with my spin on them. No unprovoked personal attacks on my end. I’d get called out with epithets saying I’m a liar or have my addiction which I’m clean for years now thrown in my face. That didn’t happen at the WSJ and I enjoyed laughs from the regulars there. They took that from me and the rest of the crew there.

You're a consistent bigot who deserves to be treated the way you are.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

8 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm.

Are you saying these "digs" fall under the category of "clever" or "funny" or "interesting?"

 

Barack HUSSEIN Obama was a Swam4 specialty. Yes, I was being sarcastic about that

[Js1 85056]

6 minutes ago, tucker said:

You deserve to be personally attacked given your views are racist and shitty. You still have infowars and dailycaller to spew your hate.

Really gross that someone is upset he can't demean people on the internet anymore with unfunny nicknames. 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

5 minutes ago, tucker said:

You deserve to be personally attacked given your views are racist and shitty. You still have infowars and dailycaller to spew your hate.

Username checks out. Tucker Carlson is my favorite. He is falsely accused of being a racist. I guess I’m in good company then 

[David Dennison 18608]

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

Username checks out. Tucker Carlson is my favorite. He is falsely accused of being a racist. I guess I’m in good company then 

No one has falsely accused you or Tucker Carlson.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

You have to use your real name on the WSJ comments brisket. That moderates things. It is a much more civil place than the CR. 

[ajax 2586]

Or you could start a youtube channel. Comment on articles there. You'd get much more exposure too if you upload consistently. 

I kind of understand companies not wanting comments on their articles but there are all kinds of way around it.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 minute ago, ajax said:

Or you could start a youtube channel. Comment on articles there. You'd get much more exposure too if you upload consistently. 

I kind of understand companies not wanting comments on their articles but there are all kinds of way around it.

I get what you’re saying and appreciate telling me about Dissenter which I’ll check out. The regular WSJ commenters are a community and in this age of isolation wrought by technology was a familiar place for me to enjoy some downtime. It also is encouraging to read others with similar right wing views countering the liberal (no CR) Chinese cultural revolution like enforced orthodoxy. I mean have y’all read what Michelle Goldberg wrote today in the Times about Krijsten Nielsen. It’s fucking straight up Mao red book shit.

[elfenix 34168]

1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I have a subscription to both the NYT and WSJ. They’re both good newspapers with different philosophies and world views (No CR) and I read both because I mainly read op-Eds and want both perspectives. I prefer the WSJ because it hews closer to my beliefs; however, I really like it more because you could comment on every article. The WSJ reader comments were a gold mine with some really funny, intelligent posts and lots of sarcasm by people I identify with - namely highly intelligent, conservative (No CR) professionals. Lots of funny digs at the President, current political figures, etc. I have always thought the most liked commentary represented the silent majority in this country or really the the segment of the population that really matters the most.

 

bleks who read the WSJ while eating chinese food with jews on christmas?

[GHOSTUSER 361]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

bleks who read the WSJ while eating chinese food with jews on christmas?

Financial Times

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

this whole thing is probably in response to Peggy Noonan's stupid piece last weekend

[elfenix 34168]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Financial Times

damnit

[Bat Guano 359]

22 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I get what you’re saying and appreciate telling me about Dissenter which I’ll check out. The regular WSJ commenters are a community and in this age of isolation wrought by technology was a familiar place for me to enjoy some downtime. It also is encouraging to read others with similar right wing views countering the liberal (no CR) Chinese cultural revolution like enforced orthodoxy. I mean have y’all read what Michelle Goldberg wrote today in the Times about Krijsten Nielsen. It’s fucking straight up Mao red book shit.

Nope, not CR at all....🙄

[El Diablo 4232]

23 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I get what you’re saying and appreciate telling me about Dissenter which I’ll check out. The regular WSJ commenters are a community and in this age of isolation wrought by technology was a familiar place for me to enjoy some downtime. It also is encouraging to read others with similar right wing views countering the liberal (no CR) Chinese cultural revolution like enforced orthodoxy. I mean have y’all read what Michelle Goldberg wrote today in the Times about Krijsten Nielsen. It’s fucking straight up Mao red book shit.

This age of isolation brought to you by the internet? Did I read that right?

[hayden_horn 11360]

just because you gave up the politics board for lent doesn't mean you can politics up the rest of the other boards. moved to CR, because, surprise, you went full CR

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Edited April 9, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[seven 1366]

Having read the comments section of articles from time to time, I can say I'm not at all surprised that clast feels at home there. 

[wildcat09 29187]

1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Really. How do you explain the treatment I have received in the CR at surly. I’m not the only one, all of us on the right have. I have refrained from posting there for Lent. It’s been much better for me as it’s reduced the hatred and vitriol that would arise in my heart from the shit flinging. Take a look at my previous posting history there if you have time. I linked a lot of articles from the NYT and WSJ with my spin on them. No unprovoked personal attacks on my end. I’d get called out with epithets saying I’m a liar or have my addiction which I’m clean for years now thrown in my face. That didn’t happen at the WSJ and I enjoyed laughs from the regulars there. They took that from me and the rest of the crew there.

*gestures at your entire posting history*

[GHOSTUSER 361]

13 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

just because you gave up the politics board for lent doesn't mean you can politics up the rest of the other boards. moved to CR, because, surprise, you went full CR

God damn it hayden. I had (no CR) peppered throughout my posts. Locked out of my own thread

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[bad_teammate 13125]

NATIONALIZE THE MODS!

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Check out how these new rules are being received. Everywhere we can still comment, people are ripping into the WSJ and threatening to cancel their subs.

 

Just a hunch, but the WSJ was around long before internet commenting.  And they will be around long after they have pulled this.

 

Maybe you need a new hobby instead of being a cock online.  

[tucker 238]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Per my email 

[TornACL 7673]

2 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

That’s like your opinion man. Isn’t the WSJ the most profitable newspaper in this country? If not they better be. They’re a lot of people like myself who enjoyed things as they were. Trying to gain favor of someone with your worldview, even though you’ll always choose the Times instead, doesn’t seem like a wise move. The loss is even more acutely felt for me because the CR is such a shithole and there isn’t a release valve there. I don’t want to be negged and personally attacked for my views.

You're all over the place and don't make any sense.

What I want is good writers and good thinkers. I don't have to agree with them. I'd suggest that you tamp down the arrogance a bit and step up on the education. 

[SimonBolivar 10898]

2 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Really. How do you explain the treatment I have received in the CR at surly. 

Didn't you say you wanted to go down to the border to shoot illegals?