ArchiveOriginally published 2010
What If You Spoke Like You Commented? Internet Comment Culture Since 2010
The 2010 post was a joke with an edge: a sketch of what a dinner party would sound like if everyone spoke the way they typed under news articles. First. You are an idiot. Fake. Nobody cares. The joke landed because everyone recognised it. The comment section it mocked has changed a great deal since.
On this page
The joke and why it workedWhat happened to comment sectionsWhat the research saysThe comment section's descendantsIf you run a site with commentsCommon questionsThe joke and why it worked
The sketch imagined ordinary conversation conducted in comment-thread register: someone announces they were first to arrive, another declares the host's story fake without evidence, a third replies to a question about the weather with an insult about spelling. Every reader had seen every line under an article that week. The piece was shared widely because it named something people had stopped noticing: that a form of speech nobody would use face to face had become normal in one particular place.
What happened to comment sections
| Period | What publishers did | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 to 2010 | Opened comments under nearly every article | Engagement metrics; the promise of conversation |
| 2011 to 2014 | Added registration, up-voting, community flags | Volume of abuse; legal exposure; moderation cost |
| 2014 to 2018 | Many closed comments entirely, pointing readers to social media | Moderation cost exceeded value; abuse drove readers away |
| 2018 onward | A minority run well-moderated, often subscriber-only comments; most rely on platforms | Comments as a product for paying readers, not a free-for-all |
By the late 2010s, a long list of major outlets had shut their comment sections, usually with a note saying the conversation had moved to social media and that the cost of moderating abuse could not be justified. A smaller group went the other way and invested: comments limited to subscribers, moderators who are journalists, and highlighting of thoughtful contributions. Those sections are, by most accounts, far more pleasant than the 2010 ones, and far smaller.
What the research says
The intuitive explanation for comment-thread behaviour is anonymity, and the intuitive fix is real names. Studies since 2010 complicate both. Requiring real names reduces some kinds of abuse but not others, and pushes away people with good reasons to stay anonymous. What predicts civility more reliably is whether there are consequences (visible moderation, removal, loss of the ability to post) and whether the visible norm of the space is civil, because people match the tone they see. A thread that opens with three thoughtful comments tends to stay thoughtful; one that opens with an insult attracts more. That is also why moderation early in a thread matters more than moderation later.
The comment section's descendants
The behaviour the 2010 post mocked did not disappear; it moved. Replies under social media posts, video comments and community forums inherited both the best and worst of the old threads. The design decisions that shape them are the same ones publishers wrestled with: whether to show replies by default, how to rank them, whether to let creators hold comments for review, and how much of the moderation load to hand to the community. The sketch would need only small edits to be about a reply thread today.
If you run a site with comments
- Decide what the comments are for. If you cannot say, close them; a dead thread is worse than none.
- Moderate early and visibly. The first few comments set the tone for everything after.
- Hold first-time commenters for review. It removes most drive-by abuse at almost no cost to regulars.
- Write and pin the rules in plain language, and enforce them consistently.
- Consider limiting comments to people with an account, a subscription or a track record. Friction is a feature.
Common questions
Why did so many news sites close their comment sections?
The cost of moderating abuse outweighed the value of the discussion, and social media offered an alternative venue publishers did not have to police.
Does requiring real names fix abusive comments?
Only partly. Consequences and visible norms matter more, and real-name rules exclude people who need anonymity for legitimate reasons.
Are comment sections coming back?
In a smaller, moderated, often subscriber-only form at some outlets, yes. The open anonymous thread of 2010 is not.
What is the single best moderation tactic?
Set the tone early: moderate the first comments on every thread and hold new accounts for review.
Was the 2010 post a video or an article?
The original was a written sketch on this site. The concept was widely imitated in videos and comics in the years after.