Years ago, New York Times columnist Gail Collins visited The Seattle Times newsroom while in town for a speaking engagement. It was at the height of the establishment of the Doctrine against Commenting Aggression, when newsrooms nationwide were going all-in on digital publishing and trying to capture some of the online conversation.
Part and parcel of that was adding comment sections to stories to give readers ways to interact with journalists and each other, offering ideas for coverage and fostering community and transparency. Users had grown accustomed to having their say on social media posts and chatting with other users. (However, it would turn out, some weren’t actually people at all.)
A Seattle Times journalist asked his New York Times counterpart: What do you think of online comment sections? Don’t read the comments, Collins shot back; we never do. (Cue the snickering from some of the reporters and furrowed eyebrows from the bosses.)
The Seattle Times has allowed commenting on most stories since the late 2000s. A new system was established in 2019 to facilitate self-policing among commenters and steer comment threads back to the topic at hand.
Some end-of-year stats, since we live in a data-driven society: In 2025, the entire seattletimes.com site received an average of 1,330 comments per day. Here in the editorial department, we average about 127 comments per day on our editorials and op-eds. The opinion piece that garnered the most comments in 2025 was the Aug. 24 editorial, “Gov. Ferguson rightly defends WA as federal pressure ramps up,” with 729 defenses/offenses. All of us in the department are responsible for monitoring/moderating comments on opinion content.
Here’s some unscientific data: Commenters are getting meaner, possibly reflecting the national mood. A small group is doubling down, lashing out at the writers of editorials and op-eds, other staffers and stories we’re not responsible for, as well as other commenters, instead of the opinions expressed. More commenters are being warned and suspended for violating our code of conduct. We are more often closing comment threads after a few hours and on some pieces before they even go live, because no one has time to babysit a stream of nastiness. There’s also a staggering lack of intuition involved when some ask why their pearl of wisdom was removed. (Hint: Being abusive not only to other commenters but also a moderator is not the key to commenting success.)
Let me be clear: The majority of commenters understand the assignment. You like to opine and you like to see what others opine in return. It’s obvious some of you have been commenting “at” each other for years. A Thanksgiving op-ed elicited heartwarming messages about how thankful readers are for one another and for the comment section. We appreciate readers who look forward to what we post each day. When you all focus on the opinions, we get good questions, suggestions and the chance to clear up inaccurate information, at our end and yours. (Thanks to all you eagle-eyed readers who quickly alert us when you spot an error.) Comments let us “meet” some of our readers this way — readers we might not otherwise encounter.
Now there are you unhappy few, you band of keyboardists who are always pressing the boundaries. I’m looking at you, those who played the “whatabout” card with cancer patients and demeaned high school writers. And the commenter who called a young woman “dearie” and another who called a physician “little doctor” and then accused moderators of being “nefarious” and “ideologues.” It’s bad enough that staff have to read it; people who volunteer their time and talent and get published shouldn’t have to.
If you don’t believe me about the meanness, here are excerpts from real comments, flagged as violations of our terms of service.
When commenters attack:
— “Your phonyism is as odious and objectionable as the rank carcasses of salmon which line the banks of streams after their annual run.”
— “I can only imagine how difficult daily life is for you.”
— “Is it hard being so narcissistic and condescending?”
— “Once a liar, always a liar. You have lost all credibility and should go to church this Sunday and beg for forgiveness.”
— “The comments section always reminds me of the dumb kids in class.”
— “What a dumb comment! There is no other word to describe it, and I hope the moderators allow it.” (I didn’t.)
This exchange did make me laugh:
— “Many vendors [at Pike Place Market] have been exposed as money-laundering fronts and actual sales are irrelevant.”
— “If you want to launder money, I would buy a laundromat.”
The staff gets abuse, too:
— “The STEB is a collection of unserious clowns.”
— “The editorial board is a bunch of pointy-headed doofuses.”
— “You’re all inbred like fruit flies in a jar.”
— “The feckless coward moderators will stealth-delete dissenting comments that do not violate terms of service, while leaving others up, according to ideology.”
So, now what? In the interest of friendlier threads, here’s an FAQ:
Q: Why won’t you let me post URLs in my comments? Does it help if I enter a follow-up comment complaining about it in all caps?
A: Links have to be preapproved before they appear in the main comment thread. This is to keep out spam and other bad stuff. And, no.
Q: Aren’t comments moderated by fish-killing, power-guzzling AI bots rather than humans?
A: No. Comments are moderated by people. The bots are busy elsewhere.
Q: Why are all my comments about Hunter Biden’s laptop, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Jay Inslee being removed as off-topic?
A: Because they are on articles that do not mention Hunter Biden’s laptop, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Jay Inslee.
Some other tips from our code of conduct that make things better for everyone: Read the entire article before commenting. Ask questions that are related to what’s in the article. Respond to the substance of a comment, not the person making it. Be careful when employing sarcasm; tone doesn’t always come across in writing. Read the whole rule book here: st.news/conduct
