Okay that's it, this is definitely a joke.

I don't mean "what a joke this is", I mean it's got to be satire, the whole thing. Intentional.

The Canadian system is a failure, but we don't know this because it kills people before they can complain?

Did someone really just write that in an article?

It sounds like some Michael Chricton novel where evil doctors are going around abuducting and euthanizing anyone who complains about the medical care. "Complaints? Yes, just step in here and fill out this form, oh and don't mind the syringe..."

The "Dear Wingnut" letters are also far too obsequious considering that the comments are almost wall to wall derision.

Has to be a joke.

The very remote possibility that this is actually written by a sane adult is bolstered by the fact that it's supposedly someone from the Bush White House, but honestly even those people weren't this ridiculous.

Can we "flag" abusive articles too?

My brain always hurts if I make the mistake of reading Camille Paglia. Surely that's got to be some sort of abuse!

Honestly, I've rarely seen letters that abuse honesty, logic, and taste as much as any one of her articles.

I've often wondered why Salon's comments section was so bad, and by that I mean abusive arguments rather than debate, and so on. I've suggested several times what I thought might be done about it, and the future plans for the Kos-like user-rating system is something I've reccomended, since it works better than anything I've seen. I know there are fears of group-think that way, but it's also group-policing, and while some might not like that idea we are in fact groups, and well, someone's got to do it. The sad fact is that wide open forums with no moderation at all end up as screaming matches between extremists, and Salon's comments are too often headed in that direction when for example the Matt Drudge links pour in, then people respond in kind, and off the rails it goes. Harnessing the wisdom of crowds is a powerful tool for these things, or the only tool really when staff has so much else to do.

Having said that, the "flagging" tack I think is doomed to fail. The one place I can think of that uses that as their only moderation is the Washington Post, and their comments sectons are bad in a way that make Salon look like a group hug. I suppose the worst comments must be deleted so I don't even see them most of the time, but what's left ain't pretty, that's for sure.

Why does user flagging fail where user rating works? I'm not sure exactly. Just go look at the WAPO comments though, they use only flagging and it's a mess. They also don't require registration though, so there's that.

No, it's group-think. Nothing else. Policing just enforces similar thinking. It saves no one from anything.

You're confusing "free speech" with publishing. If your definition were applied then Salon would be forced to publish any article that anyone sent in. And if you think that would be interesting to read, then you're on your own. It wouldn't.

Plus, who does the forcing?

This has all come up because we've never before had newspapers in which every comment that came into the head of any reader instantly would appear on the page as you read it. Or magazines where the same happened. So all this working out how to deal with what the technology has allowed is natural. However to simply equate "print everything I type on my computer, damn you" with "free speech" is absurd, by any measure. Free speech like that applies to your e-mails, to be sure, and should. That's a different story.