16th March 2022
Thanks to many of you, this blog has a very high standard of comments.
The only credit I can take for this is that I pre-moderate the comments – and I wish other sites pre-moderated their comments too.
In the olden days, newspapers used to take pride in their ‘letters to the editor’ page – and so not any old letter sent in would get published.
Some newspapers even had individuals responsible for editing these pages – and one or two may still do.
But then – the internet came along.
Comments ‘below the line’ became, for want of a better word, content – and free content at that.
It even became more legally safe not to pre-moderate the comments, as you could say that you were unaware of what was said until you had a complaint.
And this led to many sites where the comments ‘below the line’ are unpleasant or not worth the effort in reading.
Of course: if you really want to say something not nice, or useless, there is nothing stopping you – there are many places on the internet for you to go, like Twitter.
But freedom of expression does not confer the absolute right to impose that expression on another person’s website.
Yes, pre-moderation takes time and effort to do – but it is worth that time and effort.
Indeed, moderating and curating comments ‘below the line’ is itself an exercise in free expression – of how I want this blog to present itself to the world.
And there is the internet truth that good comments encourage other good comments, and bad comments encourage other bad comments.
This truth, over time, becomes perpetuating – so that the sort of people who want to leave poor quality comments tend not to even bother with this site.
A very high standard of comments below a blogpost does not happen by accident.
But.
I would be kidding myself that this was primarily because of my policy – so again thank you for leaving – and reading – the high quality comments on this site.
*
My Comments Policy now has its own page.
I would normally follow the rule “Never read the bottom half of the internet”. This blog is one place that is delightfully untrue.
And that only comes from the work you put in to make it so.
Hear, hear!
This is the only blog that I read “below the line”
Always a fascinating place to come for a variety of informed opinion on questions that are all too often dealt with simplistically in the MSM. Your hard work is very much appreciated.
In respect of the oft-rehearsed argument that editing of others’ comments by a site-operator would amount either to awareness or endorsement and hence greater responsibility at law. I think it’s true to say that, for most purposes in English law, recklessness as to content is not distinguished in terms of liability from actual knowledge.
Do, please send a copy of your guidelines to your fellow editors on the ft, please!
There used to be a time when you read the comments to learn a bit more pertinent information on an article’s subject. That has long passed, especially for. almost, any article with a French or German subject.
FT commenters are all delightful.
and there is no such place as Manchester.
I wish that were true DAG. The FT comments are somewhat infested these days and have been for a few years, particularly since the annexation of Crimea. Though as a reader these thirty years or more and a regular FT commenter since it went online I will accept your gracious compliment.
On a good day the FT comments are more informative than the journalism – but then I believe the FT has the best informed readership of any daily on the planet and has real experts on every single subject, from economics to the ballet.
I used to read the FT Letters – and indeed back in the day had some published – but they lack the immediacy and cut and thrust of the best comments and some of the humour, occasionally dark but sometimes laugh out loud.
This is the only other forum on which I read and comment and am always better informed for it. But I will not guano my time with Twitter.
I was worried your new expanded comments policy would leave out the work ‘irksome’, so I’m very glad to see it has been retained.
The expansion is a mere amplification of the same-old ‘irksome’ rule!
The comments can often be as valuable as the original content on a really good blog. I’ve come to enjoy many of the BTL contributors here and elsewhere and actually look forward to their views. The beauty of thoughtful independent publishing is the forging of thoughtful communities.
Thank you for continuing to provide a venue for informed commentary on law and policy. God knows, with the world the way it is, we need it. There are precious few such places.
And apologies if I have ever seemed irksome.
It always struck me as odd, from the early days, that newspapers believed that professional journalists required an editor whilst members of the public did not.
I believe the FT reserves the right to edit a reader’s letter and will occasionally seek clarification. For example, I was telephoned and asked whether I had any interest / shares in BP before they published a letter about BP’s role in the Makondo oil well disaster.
It is the high standard and high quality of the blog that attracts a high quality of commenters and comments.
Not everything is ‘nice’, and saying that is so, is not ‘useless’. Indeed it is the ‘not-nice’ issues that really need airing. The truth can often be painful and embarrassing for those who abuse it and fear exposure. And so it should be. Why should anyone, in a right mind, seek to protect them.
It is not (robust) expression that is not nice, but the event that caused it.
For real victims of abuse by the ‘system’, or individuals within it, don’t expect too much ‘niceness’ Lives are often ruined by such perversions, and such persons have a right to express that as they see it.
Anything less is improper censorship – for all the wrong reasons.
If I ever comment something you do not like. Please tell me. I’d rather be told, corrected than to left not knowing.
I like to think that people writing comments here think first – and as a result, produce something worth reading.
Even when people get the wrong end of the stick – or I think they have – they manage to be civil. I hope I do too.
I learn things regularly (from clarifications of history to new words) and that’s partly because it feels like people sharing thoughts rather than yelling the contents of a manifesto.
Were contributors to meet up, I think I would happily join them – and I don’t think I could say that of many other online groups. Any other online groups, I should say.
DAG sets the tone. We are allowed strong feelings – and can even be irked – but we can maintain some standard of respect. We can express frustration, especially at politicians, but don’t go for ad hominem attacks.
Long may it continue.
Thanks for the effort you make and patience with those who need editing. The result is commendable.
Phew, you obviously haven’t read mine – never malicious sometimes sharp and I like to think insightful, but like you I marvel at the range of views and one of the great things about this site is that it garners comments that make you think rather than utter a string of expletives…which is quite an achievement in this world today!
If like me you’re a (reluctant) Guardianista, we’re relatively coddled when reading below the line comments, the moderators being generally brutally effective in keeping out trolls, ne’er do wells and anyone who would try to burst our liberal bubble.
Read the equivalent comments in the Daily Hate/Mail or the Mirror and you enter a Hobbesian hellhole of everyone against everyone.
Try the FT. You even get a better class of troll.
I’ve wondered for a long time why some people commenting on your posts have a + in their name? Have I missed something or does it mean I’m a member of a secret society unbeknownst to me?
People use “name at domainName.com” (omitting the ampersand symbol) as a confusabot strategy to prevent automated email address collection from public posts.
It’s obviously something secret :)