Housekeeping: Popular Science Closes The Book On Reader Comments

Jack Baruth
by Jack Baruth

Comments can be bad for science. That’s why, here at PopularScience.com, we’re shutting them off.

Well alright then!



In the kind of bitter rant that rarely makes it past the edtors at major media outlets, PopSci’s Suzanne LaBarre announced yesterday that the magazine’s website would no longer allow readers to discuss their articles on their website.

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

I know what you’re wondering. What is TTAC’s position on evolution? It’s simple: we think the Evo IX was the best of the series, mostly because the variable valve timing was nice and the current car is kinda chunk-ayyyy. But if you want to argue for that double-clutched, overheating pig, you’re free to do so in our comments section.

We’re a few years now into “Web 2.0” and there’s still no overarching consensus on what to do with reader comments. Should they be prohibited? Edited? Monetized? Sold? Republished? What about the commenters themselves? When your humble E-I-C pro tem took the reins, we un-banned everyone and we’ve yet to hand out a single red card since that day. There’s been some pretty rough-and-tumble stuff between our readers, but I’d like to think that so far nobody has had their feelings hurt beyond the possibility of repair.

I’m deeply suspicious of any website that doesn’t allow its readers a chance to discuss its claims/assertions/comparison tests/bizarre stories of press-trip liaisons/whatevs. While I can understand the concerns that the editors at Popular Science might be having, surely the answer is not to enforce monologue on their pages. When you won’t let your readers criticize you, there always has to be the sneaky suspicion that it’s because you’re lying or misrepresenting something and you don’t want to have your pants pulled down on your own website.

But even if that is the answer for PopSci, it’s not the answer for us. We believe in the power and the voice of the Best&Brightest. And while we’re at it, now’s a good time to reiterate that the current editorial team considers commenter and reader data to be sacred. We will not share or disclose your identifying or personal information on these pages or anywhere else, now or in the future. We’re working to earn and justify your trust.

As always, we ask that you treat fellow TTACers with dignity and respect, even if they are, like, totally wrong about the longevity of General Motors ZZ4 crate motors or the wheelbase of the Peugeot 505 SW8 Estate. In exchange, we’ll continue to leave the banhammer in the recycle bin. (The “dunce cap” was taken out back and burned to ashes.) And, as always, we’re grateful for your participation and opinions, even (especially?) where they disagree with ours.

Jack Baruth
Jack Baruth

More by Jack Baruth

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 214 comments
  • Anonymous Anonymous on Sep 27, 2013

    I'm beginning to see why Popular Science deemed it necessary to ax the comments.

    • Thelaine Thelaine on Oct 19, 2013

      Looks like the LA Times agrees with you WhiskeyRiver. The Los Angeles Times is giving the cold shoulder to global warming skeptics. Paul Thornton, editor of the paper’s letters section, recently wrote a letter of his own, stating flatly that he won't publish some letters from those skeptical of man’s role in our planet’s warming climate. In Thornton’s eyes, those people are often wrong -- and he doesn’t print obviously wrong statements. “Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published,” Thornton wrote. “Saying ‘there’s no sign humans have caused climate change’ is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.” What amounts to a ban on discourse about climate change stirred outrage among scientists who have written exactly that sort of letter. "In a word, the LA Times should be ashamed of itself," William Happer, a physics professor at Princeton, told FoxNews.com. "There was an effective embargo on alternative opinions, so making it official really does not change things," said Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism at The Rockefeller University in New York. “The free press in the U.S. is trying to move the likelihood of presenting evidence on this issue from very low to impossible,” J. Scott Armstrong, co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting and a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, told FoxNews.com. Happer, Breslow and Armstrong are among 38 climate scientists that wrote a widely discussed letter titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” which was published in The Wall Street Journal in Jan. 2012. The letter argued that there was no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world's economy. It generated such extensive public debate about man’s role in global warming that the Journal published a second letter from the group a few weeks later. Reached at his home on Friday, Thornton told FoxNews.com his policy was being misinterpreted. "This is not a blanket ban on 'skeptics.' What it does ban is factual inaccuracy," Thornton said. "I'll put it this way: It's fine to say that the Lakers are a terrible basketball team, but it would be factually inaccurate to say they're bad because they put four guys out on the court every night instead of five. The latter 'perspective' also happen to be objectively false, so a letter containing it wouldn't be considered for publication." "To say that no evidence exists when scientists have produced evidence is asserting a factual inaccuracy, and we try to keep errors of fact out of the paper," he told FoxNews.com. Thornton said he has already rejected letters that have argued that there is no evidence that human activity is driving climate change. Other papers took up the LA Times cause, arguing that climate skeptics are too often kooks best kept off the pages and out of sight. Citing a letter printed in an Australian newspaper, blogger Graham Readfearn of the Guardian suggested that he supported the ban. “Wrongheaded and simplistic views like this are a regular feature on … no doubt hundreds of other newspapers around the world where readers respond to stories about climate change,” Readfearn wrote. “Thornton's decision could well leave a few editors wondering if they should follow suit.” Some climate skeptics said the move was an intentional effort to eliminate debate. “My research on persuasion shows that persuasiveness of messages is higher when both sides of an issue are presented, but only when one has good arguments to defeat the other side,” Armstrong told FoxNews.com. “If not, it is best to try to prevent the other side from being heard.” The Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburgh, Fl., took quizzical note of the policy in a post on its website on Wednesday. But editors for the school's website did not acknowledge FoxNews.com questions about the ethics of such a policy, and Thornton himself did not respond to FoxNews.com in time for this article. The writers of the Journal letter left no doubt about their feelings. “The religion of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) does not tolerate non-believers,” Breslow told FoxNews.com. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/10/18/la-times-bans-letters-from-climate-skeptics/

  • Power6 Power6 on Sep 27, 2013

    Jack I think you draw parallels where none exist at all. Comments are great here but the tone of the site is not the same and subjects are typically not those that really fire people up. I can see how comments are totally irrelevant to what PopSci is doing. You don't have to go far on the Internets to see that tribal knowledge has made a real comeback with the rise of Internet commentary. A bunch of idiots with a "consensus" does not pass for actual knowledge or moving the conversation on to a higher level. Good for PopSci for choosing not promote that, however imperfect shutting the comments down will be. I myself have chosen to limit my reading and writing of Internet Commentary. Today everyone has an opinion or thought that needs to be spewed out for everyone to see. You can waste your whole day on that, and start again tomorrow. Or you could actually do something productive with your time.

  • ToolGuy I am slashing my food budget by 1%.
  • ToolGuy TG grows skeptical about his government protecting him from bad decisions.
  • Calrson Fan Jeff - Agree with what you said. I think currently an EV pick-up could work in a commercial/fleet application. As someone on this site stated, w/current tech. battery vehicles just do not scale well. EBFlex - No one wanted to hate the Cyber Truck more than me but I can't ignore all the new technology and innovative thinking that went into it. There is a lot I like about it. GM, Ford & Ram should incorporate some it's design cues into their ICE trucks.
  • Michael S6 Very confusing if the move is permanent or temporary.
  • Jrhurren Worked in Detroit 18 years, live 20 minutes away. Ren Cen is a gem, but a very terrible design inside. I’m surprised GM stuck it out as long as they did there.
Next