Yeah, I am sure the people at CBC and at Asimov's are fine people but both have comment sections that are toxic (or did when I last looked, in the case of Asimovs). It's not who founds the place but who shows up to populate comments.
But for some reason I thought Tor did do light moderation, zapping spam?
Anyway, compared to the "hysterical peen-haters and their unjust hating on Heinlein" stuff in the summer, the article in question was pretty tame.
They certainly have automated spam filters, and at one point you could report spam that would get zapped (which I haven't done lately so I don't know if it still works), and I have on occasion seen staff do substantive moderation on particularly contentious topics, but I would not call it actively moderated.
I've only really read the comments on Leigh Butler's series of posts, but I have seen moderators threatening to ban people. However, the only offense I've ever seen them threaten to punish is the obnoxious "OMG I got the FIRST post" that some people like to post for some reason.
They do have moderators, who occasionally step in to note that a particular direction in a comment thread would not be a good idea to carry on with. For Leigh's posts' threads, she tends to step in before the moderators do (and her crowd of commenters is usually pretty self-policing, as well). And yes, they'll zap spam posts that are brought to their attention, leaving a gap in the comment numbering.
no subject
Are those comments carefully vetted, or is no one seriously calling them out?
no subject
no subject
You may be correct; however, given what I know about the people who started the site, I rather doubt this is the case.
no subject
no subject
But for some reason I thought Tor did do light moderation, zapping spam?
Anyway, compared to the "hysterical peen-haters and their unjust hating on Heinlein" stuff in the summer, the article in question was pretty tame.
no subject
no subject
no subject
--Dave