Maybe--a lot of folks made the same point in the mid 2010s when news outlets began shutting down comment sections on their sites. They usually said it was the "toxic" atmosphere. But I imagine they really didn't like when the top comment was pointing out some obvious error (of fact, logic, grammar etc) in their article. I actually remember pointing out an error of fact on the gaurdian itself back--some review had made some ridiculous point because they were confusing the Aramaic and Amharic languages--and seeing the article later updated and my comment removed.
Nobody allows that on their website now - that was before many lessons were learned. HN doesn't allow anything like it (and never has, afaik).
Counterpoints are useful to help negate echo chambers where we end up clicking on the articles which validate our world view.
In addition the most upvoted comments (at least on the Financial Times website) are sometimes more informed and nuanced than the articles themselves. The article often gets the debate rolling - come for the articles, stay for the comments (so to speak).
In the comments section of news websites, it wasn't counterpoints. It was just aggression, lies, toxicity, etc.
The Financial Times is pretty rarefied air. Everyone must be subscribed, so no anonymity (I would guesss). How much does a subscription cost? $300+ per year?
I'm find it kind of annoying when you can't comment on an article with obvious things wrong.
What about the example at the head of this comment chain?
I think news sites did lose something without feedback. I can accept a chess pool with a single good comment to make up for it. So it does provide value for me and I disagree with the "lessons learned". Also, the legal risks of showing user content should be scraped for anything that is not explicitly illegal.
We have information bubbles now that are way worse than the occasional comment in bad taste.
Have fun with that.
> the occasional comment in bad taste.
That's a lot different than most social media.
I do, that is the argument.
It would also leave me better informed since the example clearly shows that the statements could benefit from a wider context. And this wouldn't be the only case.
If comments don't provide value for you, you can ignore them. No reason to remove them for everybody else too.
I stopped reading the Guardian a few years ago. It once had really good content. That changed significantly in my opinion.
You do you, but my argument is that it leaves you worse informed:
1) There is a lot of false information, which will mislead you inevitably (you're not that smart; nobody is)
2) There is a lot of noise for the signal, a lot of waste. You are worse informed because you could have spent the time learning from higher quality information.
What they filter out is the utter crap that invariably comes to completely dominate any unfiltered comment section that is open to the general public and takes effectively anonymous submissions via the internet.