Testing a new system for online comments [Updated]
Having our site built on different content management systems provides some hurdles. One is our commenting system -- there’s not much uniformity.
Some of our stories require registration; some do not. Some of our comments appear right away, while others languish for a moderator to approve or deny. Still others disappear after one day, never to be seen again.
It's not a good practice to make you wait to see your comments. It's also not a good practice to have your comments vanish from an article. All issues we're dealing with.
We need uniformity. And reader engagement is a high priority. Can we get some uniformity? What's the best way to get there?
Facebook has a new commenting system that we're interested in. It allows for "right away" commenting while providing an authentication system no one else can match.
Both are important. By allowing comments to go up in real time, it provides instant interaction among readers. By requiring a Facebook registration, it will cut down on the mean-spirited, profane and sometimes useless responses because one's friends will also see the comments in their newsfeeds.
Sites that have initiated this commenting system have received criticism for being Facebook-centric. The comments have also been seen by critics as being much more sterile.
We're going to test it on two blogs: Technology and the Fabulous Forum. These are two of our more active blogs, and the editors are willing to be guinea pigs. Technology is going to go first (sometime Tuesday), with Fabulous Forum later this week.
Will this move be a "troll-killer" or will it make our blogs seem hollow? We don't know, but we're going to give it a shot. You tell us.
[Updated, June 29: Facebook comments have been added to nearly all of The Times' blogs. Readers and editors weigh in here.]
-- Jimmy Orr, managing editor/online
I'd appreciate a faster post time for comments. I'm always interested in what other readers are thinking about stories. Plus, it's a pain to always sign in when wanting to leave a comment.
If the Facebook connection is seemless--i.e., places a cookie on my PC so it knows it's me, and I don't have to log in at Facebook everytime I want to comment, then I'm in. I'd also, though, like to have the option to "opt out" of having my comment appear on my Facebook page if possible.
Lastly, as long as the Facebook connection is simply a technological solution to speed up the interaction among Times' readers, and doesn't subject us to Facebook generated "ads", then I'm definitely 'in'.
Posted by: KJ | March 15, 2011 at 08:40 PM
My wish is that the LA Times would monitor and delete comments that are out and out racist and hate-filled. Anytime that there's a story on immigration, or related matters, it seems like the comments section turns into a White Suprematist site.
Posted by: ian1205 | March 15, 2011 at 10:04 PM
I thought that if you use a Google authentication that would require a real identity (troll prevention). I hate Facebook and I wonder how Goldman Sachs applies a 50 Billion value but who cares, I won't be buying it. All I can say is give us another way to comment using our real identities but make Facebook an option not the requirement.
Posted by: Charles Morris | March 16, 2011 at 06:32 AM
Frankly, i avoid commenting systems that use the Facebook model. I don't need my friends getting my comments on subjects they could care less about, or getting my comments that are diametrically opposed to their own particular viewpoints. We all have differing viewpoints on matters, and most of us know not to discuss those subjects with our friends that may (or are) rabid or reactionary.
So...when I post a comment regarding my leftist Kennedy Democrat leanings, I don't need it to be sent to one of my best friends who is a die hard Republican and former "operative" in Massachusetts politics. Similarly, I'm an agnostic while my brother is a born-again Baptist. Do I want him to get missives via Facebook every time I post somewhere regarding the lack of logic exhibited by the true believers?
We are all bombarded with information overload every day, taking up more and more of our time and brain bandwidth. I only want information that is relevant to me, and I'm sure my friends, family and business colleagues feel the same way.
Just think of the way the newspaper or LATimes website is structured: designed in sections so that the people interested in sports, food, politics etc. can access that info readily, without having to sift through and look at a bunch of extraneous info they could care less about.
Posted by: cabeachguy | March 16, 2011 at 06:46 AM
remember the "total information awareness" program conceived by former admiral john poindexter? the government wanted to know everything about everyone, the identities of their friends, what they were saying in cyberspace, what they were buying, where they were going, et cetera, and then some bright fellow, probably cia, figured out how to get users to generate and publish this information themselves, and facebook was born.
some of us are a little more old-fashioned and private, and we don't want our networks of friends to be essentially public record, and do not doubt that facebook would hand over your entire account history, without even telling you, if the right person from government or one of its corporate partners asked it.
and so, avid facebookers, there you are having breakfast one morning when agents of the state roll up. they tell you that your friend billy has engaged in some worrisome speech potentially at odds with the interests of the community, and since you talk to him once a week, you are a likely repository of additional information about his plans, if not a potential co-conspirator, so you will have to abandon your breakfast and come downtown for some interrogation. when they break out the handcuffs, they will tell you it doesn't necessarily mean that you're dangerous or a suspect, it's just standard procedure which makes everybody involved safer, and by then, it will be far too late to reverse your foray into social networking.
that's why i would never have a facebook account, certainly not under my own name. privacy and liberty are brothers.
Posted by: billy | March 16, 2011 at 09:37 AM
"Some of our stories require registration; some do not. Some of our comments appear right away, while others languish for a moderator to approve or deny. Still others disappear after one day, never to be seen again."
Other newspapers and magazines comment features work just fine. Why can't the Times get it together and standardize the comment system? I commented within the new system and got mighty pissed off when someone's reply to my comment was in my Facebook notifications. This is a bad idea. What about people who don't have FB accounts? Besides being invasive, this is downright creepy. If the Times switches to the Facebook comment system I will switch to a new paper.
Posted by: zygion | March 16, 2011 at 09:39 AM
I love how people are commenting about 'privacy rights'. You do know that anything you put on the internet is public right? Even if you aren't commenting through Facebook, your comments can still be found somehow, someway because you are commenting on a public forum on the world. wide. web. You really think your comments are anonymous? Good luck with that.
It seems the only people that are really upset about this change are people who love to post hate and don't want their friends and family to know who they really are. Bullies.
I welcome the change. Time to publicly stand behind and be accountable for what you say.
Posted by: MM | March 16, 2011 at 01:36 PM
TERRIBLE idea! If you're concerned about trolls, why not just have people register on this site, rather than make them go to a site that a great many people want nothing to do with? I know that I would stop commenting if I had to create a Facebook account. I don't have one now, and I don't ever want one.
Posted by: jlp | March 16, 2011 at 04:38 PM
I love and subscribe to The Times, but have not signed up for Facebook and will not just to be able to comment on latimes.com. I love the immediacy of "right away" commenting for the ability to have conversations, but realize that, when an opposing view is presented, many/most commenters do not want to converse; they merely criticize/attack. I think a system that has "right away" commenting, a "Report Abuse" button and a moderator could work.
Posted by: yadthink | March 17, 2011 at 02:38 AM
I'm not on Facebook and never will be so if you're requiring a Facebook signup, forget it. If you are modeling your registration after Facebook practices, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't comment much but this sounds as if I will never be commenting.
Judith Lasker
Posted by: Judith Lasker | March 17, 2011 at 08:13 AM
First I'd like to blame illegals for all those racists comments. I mean they really bring it upon themselves.
Anywho, I sign in through Yahoo and I'm pleased with the instant posting but if Facebook were my only option then bye-bye. I refuse to be one of those mindless guinea pigs on Facebook.
Posted by: Phillip | March 17, 2011 at 04:05 PM
There are a number of commenters who write every day to almost every article...they post racist, dismissive, name calling comments--simple 'cyberbullying' stuff--and when someone calls them on it they post abusive, demeaning comments. I'm not a shy or delicate soul--but it reduces any discussion to the lowest uncommon(sic) denominator and actually mocks any real exchange. When I see these posts, I disengage from any postings/discussion. Is there any way to stop this activity? For thinking people who might want to actually engage with others on an issue, it's totally off-putting.
Posted by: dee | March 17, 2011 at 07:07 PM
DON'T USE FACEBOOK FOR YOUR COMMENTS!!!! San Jose Mercury News did that, and I won't comment there anymore. Others have enumerated the many reasons why this is a bad idea. If you're going to use an outside system, then use Disqus, which is strictly for comments for online publications, plus it informs you of replies to your posts. I actually prefer Disqus for comments, but I refuse to use Facebook for that purpose.
Posted by: GMK | March 18, 2011 at 05:29 AM
I have many reservations about Facebook. Mostly concerning privacy issues over data mining. I have no intention of joining them just to leave a comment here.
I value my privacy.
x
Posted by: xexon | March 18, 2011 at 02:20 PM
Just require registration on your site. I will never use Facebook. Sacramento Bee uses registration and it works fine. People still comment on illegals and welfare, but they do it without profanity and it is free speech without the cussing and/or racial remarks.
This is a move to restrict citizen participation. I may as well forget about being informed.
Posted by: sylvia | March 28, 2011 at 09:48 AM
Facebook's solution isn't going to work for most papers and sites, for several reasons:
1) The overwhelming majority of online commenters prefer to post anonymously. That's especially true for women -- an important segment for newspapers.
2) It's easy to set up a fake Facebook account and spoof someone else. Happens all the time. It is estimated that 10%-40% of Facebook profiles are fake and/or ficticious. If you know someone well, you might feel confident when you see their FB page. If you don't know them, you have nothing to go on and it would be foolish to assume you know who they are.
3) Many people would be willing to use a fake or spoofed FB profile to comment online, while still hiding their identity.
4) Plus, many people are quite willing to say truly offensive and horrible things using their real names.
(All sites will have to continue to moderate the comments, anyway.)
That's not to say some papers won't switch to FB's approach. Requiring Facebook sign-in would clean up the comments somewhat, by reducing them to a fraction of what they would otherwise be. Those sites will lose that reader engagement, but may be too narrow-minded to realize it or to care.
Most sites will know better, and continue to give users what they want.
Posted by: Richard Shaffner | April 04, 2011 at 07:58 AM
If you go through with the plan, you will lose at least this reader.
The use of pen names has been a critical tool for democracy and free speech for hundreds of years.
Plato is a pen name. Socrates may be as well.
The Federalist Papers that formed a fundamental part of the development of American democracy were written under a pen name.
The Declaration of Independence was published anonymously.
Voltaire's ideas were important in establishing democratic governments around the world, but Voltaire is a pen name.
Prior to the 20th century, the only way female authors could be taken seriously was by using a male pen name.
I don't see how identification of LA Times commenters will promote discussion.
And it may be an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment and privacy rights of your readers.
Mandatory identification is a tool of dictators and fascists. It lets them identify and punish dissidents and ethnic minorities. This is why many European nations are requiring that Google blur out any information in its mapping system that could allow the identification of any specific person.
This system will have a particularly chilling effect on the health section. Many people do not want to be identified as having a disease, and will not contribute to a discussion where they are forced to use their real names. And these are the kinds of readers who may have useful and insightful comments about a disease or treatments for it.
This is a nation where health insurance rates are skyrocketing and businesses are avoiding hiring people who are likely to negatively impact their group insurance rates. Your system will allow them to do this much more easily.
I understand your concerns about mean-spirited comments. But I am more concerned with Hitler and Stalin.
Posted by: Bowl Weevils | April 05, 2011 at 04:24 PM
I don't use Facebook. I hated it, so I deleted my account last year. And now I'm locked out of posting comments on the LA Times? Why? What the hell does the LA Times have to do with Facebook? It's like saying, well, if you want to use your Bank of America debit card at Bank of America, first you have to go to Wells Fargo and open an account there. Huh? What kind of logic is that?
This truly sucks.
By the way, I've been online with the LA Times since its "TimesLink" days on Prodigy. Yes, really, that long. And now, instead of seeing LAT as the innovator it's always been, I'm seeing it as something...well, entirely different...and I don't like it.
The old system of requiring registration--and then staying logged in, instead of constantly having to log in to assorted services to post--worked great. Why screw around with something that worked fine?
Please just go back to a registration system for the site and have *ALL* comments fall under its registration.
Posted by: SmartAssProducts.com | April 08, 2011 at 11:55 AM
What's the latest on this? I DESPISE not being able to comment on the technology pages. As a total Linux/UNIX geek (for decades), every time I read something about Android or Linux I want to comment...but can't, since I don't use Facebook.
Has the LA Times been paying attention to its own articles about Facebook? Like its privacy issues, its use of personal information gleaned from users' accounts to target advertising to them, etc.? I hope so! This is truly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of...
Posted by: SmartAssProducts.com | April 26, 2011 at 02:57 PM
I agree that there needs to be a way to deal with mean-spirited comments. They make me want to vomit. However, I do not want to be forced to become a Facebook member just to leave comments. Other sites do not require Facebook and comments are posted immediately. No reason LAT cannot do the same.
Posted by: Chuck | May 04, 2011 at 08:47 AM
What a terrible idea. My Facebook profile is private. I don't want random psychos from your commenting system seeing my photo or information. Stop being lazy and hire a moderator.
Posted by: Paul | May 05, 2011 at 04:33 PM
Disaster waiting to happen using FaceBook as a log in. No privacy. No thanks.
I'll be reading over at the LADN. They let me sign in using Yahoo.
Posted by: bugsthefarmdog | May 05, 2011 at 04:42 PM
I've recently posted on the LA Times web site and then subsequently found that others were responding to me after seeing my post on my Facebook page. I was infuriated and will be if it should happen again. It should be entirely up to me where I put my comments. I do know that anyone can choose to read them here and I do in fact use my real name in all posts. I also understand that the mean spirited, bigoted viewpoints that are sometimes spread throughout a reader's comment section should be reduced or minimized but this should not come at the expense of the LA Times choosing to post these comments to a person's web page.
To me, this is a thinly veiled method of the LA Times seeking another method of advertising at my expense. Every time that a Facebook post appears due to a reader commenting, the LA Times is getting a plug for it paper and a signal of acceptance by the poster. I'd prefer to let others make their own choices as to the sources for news.
If the postings go to Facebook without the user having control, I will not be posting here.
Posted by: Robert Ameeti | May 05, 2011 at 04:48 PM
Facebook is an insidious collector of personal information although they hide it as they compile statistical data on their users then share it with other commercial interests. One friend told me the day he signed up he had over 200 strangers asking to "be his friend" - he closed the account that same day. Many individuals with a shred of self-respect and principle values - seems like ancient American social responsibility these days - don't like Facebook let alone would sign up for it. If the LA times wants to limit their comments to Facebook accounts then we will relegate the LA Times to the waste bin. There are many available media sources withe the same ad-nausea news that everyone reports everyday. Finally, if I can't read what many are thinking and feeling, I'll stop advertising in the LA Times. Why should I?
Posted by: Bob Johnson | May 06, 2011 at 06:19 AM
Maybe have both systems. I'm going to hold out of Facebook as long as possible. I don't like my personal information being sold out. Facebook seems to spend more time violating privacy or trying to than anything else.
Posted by: Dan | May 06, 2011 at 09:56 AM
For those parts of the Times where they use Facebook for comments I'm not going to use it.
Facebook isn't your friend, it's there to make money and they make money by data aggregation and data mining. While you can see your "friends', Facebook can see everybody's friends.
With data mining, you could sign up for a Facebook account with a fake name and by your friends and other data they can figure out not only your real name but address, phone number and credit score.
No thanks, I still want a little privacy before I die.
Posted by: affableman | May 07, 2011 at 11:28 AM
@ Phillip,
"First I'd like to blame illegals for all those racists comments. I mean they really bring it upon themselves."
Stunning, simply stunning.
Posted by: affableman | May 07, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Not smart, not progressive. Seems like a knee jerk "easy"decision to deal with moderating trolls. But forcing people into a social network site to comment freely goes against good privacy sense and is "vendor specific" for no good reason. There are other choices that are not social networking sites.
Posted by: Frankly | May 07, 2011 at 02:47 PM
This is an exclusive arrangement for Facebook users that "excludes" readers who don't have any interest in signing up for the social media extravaganza. Please go back to the old system; I have no intention of joining Facebook just so I can comment on LAT. Unreasonable expectations on the part of the IT dept, or whoever makes these decisions.
Posted by: jackwells | May 11, 2011 at 05:42 PM
PLEASE keep the L.A. Times log in, or at least a Yahoo friendly log in. We are all individuals and prefer our own methods. What many of us don't like is being told if we don't join Facebook we are being marginalized and turned away from posting, as the Daily News has done. I won't visit their site anymore as a result. Not all your readers are Facebook junkies nor want to be. Please do not make this FB only. Thanks!
Posted by: Mark | May 11, 2011 at 08:55 PM
I belong to Facebook, but I don't want to use their "facilities" for anything except personal messages with my friends. I don't really trust Facebook, and they know enough about what I do as things are. If I have to go through Facebook to post comments in the LA Times, I just won't comment.
Posted by: Germaine | May 12, 2011 at 11:11 AM
Ditto Cabeachguy, xexon, smartassproducts, chuck, et.al. I DO NOT want my relatives, friends knowing how much I care about the issues on the Good Wife, or DWTS, or any of the other silly stuff I indulge in- often while on the clock!- Please, allow me my illusions.
As for mean, racist people making mean, racist comments: I do just what I do when I encounter such people in real life- I ignore them.
I am worried about datamining, and all kinds of things about Facebook, my privacy, and Big Brother's fingers in that book, which have yet to come out. Yeah, I sound paranoid, but every time you turn around, there is some new revelation, then an apology and then back to loss of privacy as usual. Though any mistakes or damage is always excused with- But, hey! you signed up voluntarily! Caveat Emptor, and all that.- I haven't been on my site for 6 months. So, if this is a bid to make yourselves more relevant, or because you believe your own media hype that Facebook is a seminal part of every American's existence in the early 21st century- you're wrong, boyo.
Readers happily reading the LAT, and posting comments, typically aren't that interested in twittering and Facebook. We're an older demographic. and not so tech-tied. Respect that and appreciate it.
PS- I have made four comments this week, and two required the Facebook thing. You've already started this Fb crap. Stop lying.
Posted by: willowbe | May 12, 2011 at 12:07 PM
I will NEVER again comment on this site. I don't want to use Facebook with you.
Posted by: jen | May 12, 2011 at 12:08 PM
Please don't switch Showtracker to Facebook. I am prohibited from accessing Facebook from work so I would no longer be able to read showtracker. I view it every day during my lunch break. Its a nice respite that I look forward to every day. I don't have a computer at home right now. I am so dissappointed and bummed that I may no longer be able to follow showtracker. Bye, Bye, showtracker, I will miss you!
Posted by: Juwann | May 12, 2011 at 02:10 PM
What logical reason is there to shut out those who don't have Facebook accounts? Are you THAT desperate to alienate millions of people? Oh, I get it, Wonder Brat Mark Zuckerman is paying you guys to make the switch. Doesn't the fact that Wonder Brat has taken down the FB page of a lawyer because - horror of horrors - his name is also Mark Zuckerman bother you? And now you know why I won't sign up for a FB account.
Hasta la vista, Times. I hope you and Wonder Brat are very happy together.
Posted by: Lisa | May 12, 2011 at 03:36 PM
Please reconsider this. I regularly comment on recaps on ShowTracker, which generally has excellent reader comments. I do not think this system is necessary for blogs such as that, and as a person without a Facebook account, I will be forced to take my traffic to sites that do not employ the Facebook model.
Posted by: Brett | May 12, 2011 at 04:27 PM
I hate the idea! Here the Times goes again, giving us less and pretending its more. We had the facebook option and I never used it. I don't want to now. I like that the Times bog is the Times blog, not the lost in the morass that is facebook. this is a tack to distance yourself from the people. Bad idea. Fix it, don't chuck it out.
Posted by: william wray | May 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM
I agree with cabeachguy. If I had still had my Facebook account, I would NOT want my comments here to be a part of that nonsense. If I did, I'd share it there.
I deleted my profile because I don't want to be part of the TIA (thanks, billy! I had forgotten about that and FB seems like a great substitute!)
I am not a racist or a hater and it's unreasonable to say that anyone who is against this change is one. That's similar to saying that if you have a problem with surveillance cameras watching your every move, you must be hiding something.
Let me read the Times and make comments in peace. I don't need, nor want, teh fb watching, monitoring, analyzing, and marketing my every move.
Dave in Maine
Posted by: Dave in Maine | May 13, 2011 at 01:54 PM
I really hope this thing that is no longer a blog goes back to being a blog. I think the best way to see that happen is to never post on Facebook. I'll miss you Monster, but you left, so you have to come back.
Posted by: william wray | May 14, 2011 at 07:16 PM
People who choose not to use Facebook are barred from commenting. Is this a joke or just a bad one-liner? It seems the gag's on us. Please find another solution to the problems with the commenting system.
Posted by: Cate | May 16, 2011 at 10:13 AM
It used to be very easy to leave comments on the Show Tracker blog pages, but now it's not. Why did you switch to only allowing Facebook account holders to leave comments? I have a FB account, but even I can't leave a comment. I keep getting a pop-up error message every time I hit the "Comment" button: "Oops. Something went wrong...." I never had trouble with the old method for commenting. (And there was rarely spam or abuse with the old system, so it obviously worked just fine.)
But aside from the error message issue, it seems unfair that someone has to have a FB account to leave a message on a newspaper's site. Newspapers are supposed to be universal access. They are traditionally the news source and forum for the public at large. Why are you shutting the door to non-Facebook users? Facebook can't even be accessed in certain countries (China, for example). You are shutting out entire swaths of the online population with this pointless requirement.
Posted by: Kathode | May 24, 2011 at 03:14 PM
If the LA Times decides to force all readers to use Facebook in order to comment on blogs or articles, I will no longer comment on blogs or articles, ever. And that means I'll drift away from the LA Times entirely, because it's too frustrating to read some things without being able to respond.
I don't have an FB account because I don't like the way they aggregate and sell my personal data, and the way they track users where ever they go on the internet -- such as to your pages. If someone wants to track my every electronic footstep through the internet, they should at least have to work for it instead of having it handed to them.
So how else can I leave comments on LA Times stories, if I don't want to sell my soul to Jeff Zuckerman's crew? Well, you should consider Disqus if you don't want to run your own system.
But forcing all readers to give up their privacy to Facebook so that you don't have to hire a few interns to kill off troll remarks is A Very Bad Idea. As commenter "Paul" below said, quit being lazy [and cheap] and hire some moderators.
Re: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/readers/2011/03/testing-a-new-system-for-online-comments.html
Posted by: Lisa | May 31, 2011 at 12:10 PM
At last...I finally found this forum. Here's my forty-two cents worth:
I am one of those folks who does not like this "facebook-centric" nonsense for commenting. I don't have a facebook account and have no plans to get one. There are a few blogs that I used to leave comments on, but now those blogs use the facebook commenting system, so I have been shut out from commenting there.
If the Times decides to keep the facebook-only commenting system for everything, like "zygion", above me, says, I will go someplace else.
Fire away...
Posted by: k | May 31, 2011 at 03:11 PM
Please, please, do not condemn those of us who are not social media fans to silence.
We have valid concerns, too, and not all of us are raging psychos.
Other media have ways to sift out the dirty language and violence; so can you.
Back to "normal" comments, please and -- as you point out -- more uniformity among articles that we can comment on.
Posted by: Hypatia | June 01, 2011 at 07:11 PM
Businesses are being sucked into the Facebook model as they chase the narcisstic teen demographic. Just another fad that will be outgrown as those self-absorbed users hopefully get a life, move on to the next fad, and log on less and less. Subjecting readers of the LA Times to become associated with Facebook in order to post comments to your published articles is simply an invasion privacy and should not be adopted.
Posted by: freeway | June 08, 2011 at 06:17 PM
I think this is a great idea. I agree with MM, Dee and others who feel that the people who are against Facebook commenting are the people who are trashing the site right now -- the ones who turn the comment thread on EVERY SINGLE STORY into a forum on immigration, healthcare and Obama...even if the story has absolutely nothing to do with any of those things.
If you think anything you post on the Internet is truly private, you are incredibly naive.
And if you don't want to say something under your real name, perhaps you shouldn't be saying it in the first place.
Posted by: TR | June 12, 2011 at 05:01 AM
I don't use Facebook, a very conscious decision after numerous issues with privacy issues and fixes. I have been Facebook free since November 2010 and as an avid reader of the LA Times (online) I would like the opportunity to leave the occasional comment on an article. Unfortunately I can no longer do this, which is frustrating.
There are a multitude of other options available, which should be considered since we all have our own styles, methods, and social media awareness.
Thank you.
Posted by: Jason | June 13, 2011 at 03:06 PM
There should definately be real-time commenting and it absolutely should require registration with the Times or some sort of validation as long as that validation is not overly objectionable for ALL users.
I'm fine with the Yahoo log-in, it's quick easy and not a total privacy invasion.
Hate Facebook will not use and will block latimes.com from my computer should you decide to make this the only option.
Some one suggested Google.... Ah NO! Google makes Facebook look like a privacy rights advocacy group.
Posted by: courtney | June 15, 2011 at 10:57 AM
This is terrible! I HATE Facebook, no longer have an account (cancelling was NOT easy), and refuse to use it. Thanks, Times. What's next? A sharp stick in the eye?
Posted by: Doug | June 16, 2011 at 04:21 PM
I feel shut out by the Facebook only option. I don't have a Facebook account nor do I want one. In addition, I feel like the FB based system facilitates a lot of "me too" chiming in that is more about interacting between friends than about contributing to a conversation.
Posted by: Dottie Chang | June 17, 2011 at 10:53 AM