The Times is now turning off comments on all 'gender' articles

[MiladyBerserko]

The Times continue to cover this issue but now turn off comments on all 'gender' related articles. They do not turn off reader comments on any other topic, except where there is an open legal issue.

I am beyond frustrated with this. The Guardian nailed their colours to the 'Transwomen are women' mast a long time ago and disallow comments.

Now The Times seemingly cannot / will not allow reader feedback.

What is it about this issue that makes organisations run scared?

Lot's of articles and subjects are sensitive to someone. Not a good enough reason especially when many of the articles are actually about politics, policy and legislation.

If they want to turn of comments on a fluff lifestyle piece like the couple from yesterday I don't care too much about that. When it's about something an elected politician has said or the SNP forcing through unpopular legislation I very much mind.

@flyingbuttress43

The Times is not the only paper willing to publish GC articles butnobodytoldme The Daily Telegraph has articles pretty much every day on the issue.

Yes, thank you. Sorry I should have added that. But that paper won't help us, I think, because few except Tories would read it.

For all their faults, (where do we start?) Tories can tell the difference between the two sexes, and are the one party in the country who have refrained from demanding as party policy that bearded rapists must be allowed in women-only previously 'safe' spaces

I think we all need to write to them and complain.

It's quite a recent change. There really was a massive volume of comments on pretty much any gender related article. If everyone who commented on the times articles complained they may change it back.

I would say that the majority of comments could be construed as from a gender critical viewpoint.

Never underestimate the power of advertisers.

I think they are a hidden force in the UK

Always follow the money

@malloo

I suspect it may be because of the large number of comments and the time commitment needed to moderate them.

The Telegraph manage to moderate the large number of comments on the stories they post on sex and gender. If you want to join the discussion it might be a good idea to change your subscription. The Times might think again then.

The Mail for all its faults is publishing articles about this daily. And the comments are a mix of horrified and supportive.
Now the Guardian......

I think it’s deliberate, we’re being crowded out, to get a reaction, I’m left with an uncomfortable feeling about all this, seeing the anger rising in women, feeling my own anger rising, it feels like we’re being manipulated & played, pawns in a game. @lightand said follow the money, overseas money & interference?

This about The Telegraph is interesting, does nobody not think that a lot of this is going on with other newspapers/media, other topics/society issues, foreign powers trying to destabilise society
twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1502763923812065287

unherd.com/2021/02/the-communist-party-on-campus/

I think they should decide between allowing comments or not allowing comments across the entire paper. It's the in between that winds people up.

When all news was print media nobody could comment other than writing a letter to the paper or Points of View. So as a society we'd probably cope with that.

Censoring some but allowing others erodes trust more than not bothering with a BTL section at all.

I agree, and people commenting on other stories about GC articles might force a decision either way.

I think they may have switched it off for articles concerning race and wokeness too. May be wrong but that's my impression. I suspect it's about volume of comments that need reviewing. But just a guess.

@OvaHere found a good comment under this one:

The civil service isn’t working. Here’s how to fix it.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cbcf66ce-a24e-11ec-a401-6c0b998e6c9b?shareToken=ebd4303d54d91dc14904f9c05ee075f77_

"What does Mr Slater say about his actions in funding / promoting political lobby groups to schools (Mermaids, Stonewall etc ) via DfE policy advice? Did it not breach the Nolan principle of integrity when he received hospitality / awards in return for promoting their ideology directly to children and schools?
Has this unprecedented access to children in schools (political groups have perviously been restricted from pushing their beliefs to children) influenced the recent unexplained massive increase in teenage girls deciding their bodies must be male and need fixing?
The Cass Report's interim findings raise the question as to the role of schools in what looks like an unprecedented issue of social contagion amongst teenagers - a well known phenomenon in other areas."

The absolute brass neck of Slater slagging off the civil service, which is partly "not working" due to being Stonewalled to the eyeballs. Glass houses, stones etc.

I was just thinking that if there's no discussion allowed in those comments section (it's where I find out a lot about these issues!) then for me there's absolutely no point in subscribing. You can do that thing on a desktop computer where you paste in a url, archive it quickly before it asks you to log in, and so can read without a subs.
Might call them tomorrow.

@MidCenturyClegs

I was just thinking that if there's no discussion allowed in those comments section (it's where I find out a lot about these issues!) then for me there's absolutely no point in subscribing. You can do that thing on a desktop computer where you paste in a url, archive it quickly before it asks you to log in, and so can read without a subs. Might call them tomorrow.

I was considering doing the same. Let's - it'll have much more impact if lots of us do it.

I unsubscribed yesterday. You can do it by email and put your reasons in writing rather than relying on a telephone operator to pass them along. They try and make you call (I’ve done that before and unless you’ve got half an hour for the sales pitch, I’d give it a swerve). But I told them I wasn’t interested in discussing anything, they had the reasons why I was unsubscribing, and if they took further amounts out of my account they would be considered unauthorised.
I have also posted a comment on the dedicated comments page.

I'm going to cancel my subscription over this.

Well yes I might too, but posting on other threads looks interesting.

I like your idea Ova.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/39dd3cd2-a226-11ec-a401-6c0b998e6c9b?shareToken=2001728e67489ff57ebcc19cc016de79

The Mail also seems to be allowing far fewer ‘moderated in advance’ comments on articles covering ‘sensitive’ topics. (Gender issues and Meaghan Markle are two examples.) They let about seven through, six which are likely to be popular and one unpopular, with up and downvotes confirming reader opinion. Up and downvotes can then number in the thousands

I wonder if there is an underlying reason why MSM has suddenly become more sensitive about the comments they host. I suspect it is not just the Times.

A lot of the comments that would appear in The Times were often similar to those here - perhaps no surprise! But the Mail ones are far less restrained.

Are there fewer of them..? There were thousands of likes for best rated comments on this JKR article I saw on there:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10605735/JK-Rowling-slams-Keir-Starmer-Labour-leader-says-trans-women-women.html
500-odd comments with some with 13,000 or so likes

This one has about 800 comments. Best rated at about 5000 likes:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10604829/Keir-Starmer-calls-respectful-debate-controversial-issue.html

This one doesn't have so many. Only about 180 comments. Best rated at about 2500 likes:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10604249/Tory-police-commissioner-slams-ridiculous-bid-Crispin-Blunt-silence-womens-rights.html

I suppose it must be quite intensive for the moderators if they have to check each one and there are hundreds and hundreds to go through, some of them with replies to comments. The Mail is hard to tell as their website is updated so much, it might depend on how high up the front page a story is? Maybe.

With other hot topics, I do remember that SW complained about this in The Times:

Teachers ordered to avoid ‘biased’ views of BLM and Stonewall

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a3c27a26-8f67-11ec-8d28-50e05b644342?shareToken=8e95b3d6d0008937d94f7be638f877d33_

The complaints:

https://mobile.twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/14942550318933032988_

I think it could or could not have been a valid complaint. It depends on your reading of the guidance sets issued by the DfE. IIRC, The Times changed the headline later in the day online.

Gah - I’ll be cancelling my subscription over this tomorrow too.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10605367/Parents-fury-32-650-year-American-School-London-teaches-64-genders.html

350 comments- largely shocked as to why schools are teaching that there are 64 genders and sex doesn’t matter in sport - and why this one in particular is not changing its stance after a drubbing from
Ofsted.

They have turned the comments on this morning on an article about JKR and twittter, although they are pre-moderated.

One of the commenters suggests she has had a reply to her email from the editor.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e6004e12-a31d-11ec-9096-4a7874fe33ed?shareToken=006c66663e94f8a53f2720a40e8ee2ca

Looks like they've switched them all back on, Presumably the prospect of losing all those ex Guardian readers and women who value freedom of speech made them think twice. They've obviously decided to face down whoever was threatening them - OpenWeb or the trans activists?

Thanks for the link. Comments are now turned off!