Human critique of art is instinctive to the point of being reflexive. A child who reads a book will not need prompting to share their feelings with others. Any artist putting their work out into the world must know—and accept—they are inviting a conversation.
For most mediums these discussions take place in a venue external to the work itself. The opera does not hold an open mic during intermission or after the final curtain. Anyone trying to make a comment from their seat is removed. Critics must save their thoughts for an appropriate time and place. Only performers are permitted to take the stage.
The exceptions to this are radio call-in shows and periodicals with letter columns. Here the publisher freely offers their platform to the audience. It is notable that these types of publications are quite rare, and are subject to extremely restrictive moderation.
Out of technological necessity, the earliest websites were completely static. Discussions had to take place in chat rooms and forums. Even when sites like OpenDiary and Slashdot introduced inline comments, it was a heavy technological lift for others to follow suit. Not until the rise of blog engines like WordPress and Blogger did commenting became accessible to the masses.
Once the seal was broken it spread like wildfire. On today’s web it is taken for granted that almost all pages will have a comment section. Most content management systems have the feature enabled by default. Publishers rarely stop to consider if they can, or should, disable it. Readers are often surprised when they cannot find a comment box beneath an article.
Comments sections are not without merit. Reader comments often contain additions and corrections which are invaluable to the author and future readers. Even useless comments bring with them the joy of human connection and acknowledgement. Audience participation helps to build community among the fans, even if relationships with the creator are purely parasocial.
Most of these upsides can still be achieved by following the old model. The author can always be directly contacted, probably via email, and they can make any necessary corrections or additions based on that feedback. Communities can be built on side channels like forums.
The downsides of a comments section are numerous and unavoidable. A website with comments can not be purely static. Costs related to the technological complexity of deployment and maintenance increase significantly. Security, moderation, and potentially even legal issues all require additional resources.
As a matter of principle, if someone builds a soap box, it is for them to decide who shall speak from it. In an era when publishing is democratized, there is less reason than ever for anyone to share their platform with others. If people have something to say, they can use their own blogs or social media accounts. Yet, we have created a world where many feel entitled to their neighbor’s megaphone.
What bothers me most of all is that comments are a source of extrinsic motivation. I plan to write more on this in the future, but I blame extrinsic motivations for the homogeny and poison in the current digital media landscape. What people truly miss about the old web was the sincerity and authenticity that can only be borne from intrinsically motivated artists. Removing the comments section is one of the best ways to initiate a revival of that bygone era.
If anyone agrees with me, or not, I guess I’ll never know. Maybe a reader will feel strongly enough to email me their thoughts. I know that most people are so desperate for engagement that they will not remove the comments section. All I ask is for people to take a moment to consider whether or not it is truly in their best interest. Not every show has to be a call-in show.