Popular Science Dot Com Shuts Down Comments

This thread is inspired by information learned from the YouTube video "Ben Davidson on Climate and the Variable Sun | Space News," published February 14, 2014.

At the beginning of the video it was pointed out that comments for articles online for the magazine Popular Magazine had been recently shut down.

Here is a screenshot showing this followed by the purported rationale by the magazine itself for doing so:





Have they lost their mind?

Here is the YouTube video. The rest of the video is interesting. Ben Davidson is an independent researcher with a YouTube channel of his own, (be prepared for audio) Suspicious0bservers.

Published on Feb 14, 2014

Ben Davidson will be joining Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott on the opening night of EU2014 Conference: All About Evidence, March 20-24 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. Click here for more information: www.thunderbolts.info...

Popular media around the world today present a singular narrative on the topic of global warming, or so-called "climate change." This narrative tells us that scientists overwhelmingly agree that man's industrial activities are changing the climate and weather. Not only does this story dominate television and newspaper coverage, but recently even science websites have explicitly stated their intolerance of dissenting opinions.

reply to post by Mary Rose

I like his yt channel and go to it every day .I like that he takes a bit of time to explain to me how some of this stuff works .As far as the pro/warmers closing comments ,its only going to hurt them in the end .They can sing to their own choir while we find other sites to listen to the debate no matter which way its going .This whole new consensuses in science is ridiculous .Mob rules lol

reply to post by Mary Rose


Quite frankly, I agree with them and don't blame them at all.



^^ That comment hits the nail on the head.

reply to post by the2ofusr1


Education and media are being reformed by the free speech of the internet.

It is exciting.

Kandinsky
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Quite frankly, I agree with them and don't blame them at all.

^^ That comment hits the nail on the head.

Yep there are countries all over the world that would agree with you. Silence any form of discourse that does not agree with the party line. Silence any reporter that does not work for a government sponsored news agency.

Their sight, their option so they can block anything they want to.. All that does is bring them out for what they are. People and web sights can look smart until they open their mouth and remove any doubt about their intelligence or research ...

Even here at ATS when someone has a dissenting view and they post many times through discourse the error of their ways can be discussed and minds changed.. But as in 1984 (the book) it is much better for the few and the proud to have control over what is discussed and even thought. I have always felt if your stance was backed by facts, your arguments will stand on their own merit regardless of the detractors.. Silly me !

Mary Rose

Hmmm ... politically motivated? I know hardly anything about this Ben Davidson guy. Is he running for office or something?

The verbiage "explicitly stated their intolerance of dissenting opinions" is troubling. Are they threatening to take their football and go home?

Personally I'm surprised more sites haven't taken this approach. Anyone who has read a comment section before will attest to it being a hive of scum and villainy. It doesn't matter what an article or video is about there will people in the comment section stirring up trouble.

We couldn't allow the sheeple to voice that we live in an electric universe.... They may stop thinking that the sun burns something which means that they may stop using things to burn here for energy...

Mary Rose

Have they lost their mind?

Oh my! Did they think that this little feature of todays world wouldn't land in their tree?

Always keep in mind as well how important it is to some that certain things are not challenged. Its not so much the issue its the standings of the high priest. Some just cant take that very well....and we will have silence.

reply to post by Snarl


The Popular Science website and Ben Davidson have nothing to do with each other.

Snarl
The verbiage "explicitly stated their intolerance of dissenting opinions" is troubling. Are they threatening to take their football and go home?

You're quoting the Description from video but it is unclear to me what your point is.

First of all, who is "they"?

727Sky


Yep there are countries all over the world that would agree with you. Silence any form of discourse that does not agree with the party line. Silence any reporter that does not work for a government sponsored news agency.

This isn't really the same thing. After all, before the internet, all you had was newspapers and magazines. If you didn't agree with an article, all you could do was write a letter to the editor. It was up to the editor if they ever published your letter.

Anyone who doesn't like what Popular Science has done is free to start their own website up on the internet, and allow (or disallow) whatever comments they want.

What bothers me is how quickly the comments deteriorate to ad hominem attacks. As soon as someone does that they should be removed from the thread - but I suppose that takes alot of time for moderation.

I agree with their stance. These are people whom have done their due diligence and produced scientific articles. How frustrating it must be to have average Joe lambaste absolute data. Trolling undermines the academic achievements many of the contributors worked hard to obtain. Good for them. Science Daily does the same.

reply to post by saneguy


Moderation is necessary.

In my opinion the magazine Popular Science is a mainstream publication which should be equipped to handle the challenges of running a website in a professional manner. That would include using resources for proper oversight of their Comments section to make sure that debates are civil.

But I don't think the lack of civility of many people is the issue the magazine has.

I think their issue is that in their minds there is settled science and that's the end of it.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

reply to post by 727Sky

Yep there are countries all over the world that would agree with you. Silence any form of discourse that does not agree with the party line. Silence any reporter that does not work for a government sponsored news agency.

You're on the high horse to nowhere with that argument. It's a pop-science site for the Western masses, not a political outpost of suppression. People posting gun-diatribes, anti-evolution rants or pro-Rep/Dem zingers aren't needed on a science website...that's what ATS is here for

I have always felt if your stance was backed by facts, your arguments will stand on their own merit regardless of the detractors.. Silly me !

That's true, but there's a high tendency towards the argument from ignorance in many internet comment sections. Post after post of emotive, belief-driven opinion and very little by way of facts. I guess PopSci would prefer their own articles to do the talking from now on...

Kandinsky
It's a pop-science site for the Western masses, not a political outpost of suppression.

It is a mainstream science publication.

Science is directly related to politics because science and its related technology are central to the quality of the human condition.

Politics - who controls tax money collected for the public welfare - has a huge impact on what scientific research takes place and on what technology we have at our disposal.

Science and politics are not separate from each other.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Well, Popular Science is right about people thinking that they can decide evolution didn't happen (even though that was already proven) or that climate change isn't happening (even though that is proven) just by speaking loudly. There used to be peer-reviewed studies and comments, which meant that no matter how loud you yelled, it wouldn't make things true.

reply to post by darkbake


Evolution, a theory, and "climate change," which formerly was called "global warming" and claimed to be man-made, are not settled science. Science is never settled.

Popular Science is in error to suggest that it can be.

It saddens me when after reading something I find that I cannot comment. Let the trolls troll, I say. There will be an equal, opposite reaction to keep it in balance. censorship is appalling on any side.

reply to post by Mary Rose


20 years ago I remember "censorship" was a huge buzzword. I think I even remember anti censorship spots on MTV.


I don't hear much about it anymore, except on ATS.



Try developing more artful explanations instead of simply deciding the debate is over...........