WSJ has removed "likes" from my comment profile... no kidding. Additionally, they removed some comments... I would never have know if not for reviewing just for fun. Why would they do this?

It is his sons who are doing everything to destroy it.

It is only a matter of time .

Many subscribers cancelled.

It is no fun to read the likes of Rebecca Ballhaus et al, regularly concocting hit pieces on the president.

WSJ used to be a great paper -- one of the last bastions of real journalism after the Times became corrupt.

Then Rupert Murdoch bought it. Now it's a waste of paper.

I subscribe to o Reilly now directly. No bimbo airhead eye candy to waste my time. There’s a lot of good stuff on YouTube like Jordan Peterson and Stefan molineux and mark levin too. Plus I get to watch what I want when I want to watch it. Free market is cool !!

The WSJ is just one step away from becoming the NYT, that I stopped reading eons ago.

I read on Bretibart yesterday that the NYT posted: the Israeli elections were a "setback" for Netanyahu b/c it was too close to call and the NYT predicted he'll lose (sounds familiar?).

At any rate, today one of the commenters wrote:

"i wouldn't disgrace my ass by wiping it with the ny times."...😁

Yes, this is all happening on a paid for site.

That's why I am certain it'll be followed by defections.

I wasn't concerned so much about whether they chose to allow comments, but in the past, I've always had to get my WSJ third party because they wanted a subscription to access their original content. I can understand limiting comments on a public news site, but on a paid for site? That just seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face...

I believe WSJ is one of the publications that allows comments. The NYT banned them a long time ago.

The reason is obvious: readers are quite blunt about facts which may not be what the journal wants to see.

This censoring of comments came about after blistering fights between trolls and sane people, sometimes boiling over to include downright threats. First the Journal introduced the option to block commenters you did not want to read. When this did not bring the results, they clamped down on the option of commenting, by pulling it.

I received some crap stating:

"In our efforts to provide a space for a civil and respectful conversation, we limit the number of articles to match our moderation capabilities. We seek to offer conversations on a variety of topics that reflect the breadth of The Wall Street Journal’s coverage.

We are privileged to be a part of your daily routine, and will continue to bring you the news, views, resources, and service that you count on to stay ahead. Your business is appreciated. If you have any additional questions or concerns do not hesitate to contact us."

"Civil and respectful" when the WSJ is maligning the president day in and day out, just to name one example.

Martha McCallum always trips the switch for me. I can't watch her for a second. Her loudmouth idiocy is really a strain on anybody's nerves.

I concur with your opinion.

The reason I still subscribe to the WSJ is to have access to daily events as they occur. True, there are other sources but I have been a subscribes for umpteen years and sometimes there are pieces there worth reading.

Since they introduced this instrument to "elevate" the level of discussion, some articles are blocked to comments. But hack pieces against Trump are not. You should have seen the comments of readers today on that. People are not stupid even if the WSJ, like other MSM outlets think they are. The Journal will lose another contingent of subscribers due to this partisan move. Now, on top of the comments section, the writer posts a sentence (probably this is what the editors consider "elevated". The sentence or question is loaded, like today when the writer of Netanyahu's victory posted this: "Do you think Netanyahu will be able to carry on his right wing policies in view of his conviction for bribery?" So there you have it. The non-aligned, neutral WSJ.

Regarding FOX, I stopped watching it as well, after they removed O'Reilly.

Let's see now... So, we should all be allowed access to any private group and force them to discuss our dissenting viewpoints? So, church then?

Thanks.

“Censorship” is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one’s own antagonists.

The Virtue of Selfishness “Man’s Rights” - Ayn Rand

Private one-sided group? lol

Of course they would, they don't want anyone to realize that any group or majority of Americans actually want border control. They need to keep the truth away from the followers. Strict followers could go either way on any issue, whatever they hear form their leaders, their controllers.

Surprising given that their site has predominantly been a pay-for site...

Right. What is a good word for,
A topic, by a group, not open to any exchange of ideas?

"WSJ opens select articles to reader conversation to promote thoughtful dialogue. Check the right column or below for stories open to conversation. For more information, please reference our community guidelines. Email feedback and questions to moderator@wsj.com. "

WSJ was owned by Fox, who ended up with it in the Disney/Fox sale? Disney is liberal, but lately, Murcdoch's are going over the edge as well. rarely watch Fox, now tht they have added all the liberals to talk, and even the old timers, like Matha M. are a pain to watch. Was Chris wallace, Shep Smith and Jessica Tarlov not too much bfore the new crop were brouth in. Fox is going under and will be just another CNN.

I would challenge you to see just what "news" they are providing that is really relevant to YOUR life. Its probably a lot less than you would think.

These MSM outlets spend too much time regurgitating the collectivist line and overanalyzing what "might" happen.

I quit even watching FOX news since they changed and decided to give equal time to the left and put on high-heeled vapid bimbos to deliver the "news".

For example, who really cares whats in the Muiller report anyway. What we need to know is whether Trump is impeached, since that was the reason fro the investigation. Otherwise, the contents of the report is meaningless.

I have a lot more time to do what I really want to do, without having to waste time on this trivia.

Cancel the subscription. It will save you money that you can spend on something that brings you happiness.

I dont read the WSJ. Its just MSM garbage now.

What did the note say?

I'm trying to think of a more descriptive word that describes these types of events.

Not to nitpick, but from what I understand, "censorship" is an act only a government has the power to do because it requires the use of force. I get it though.

A teachable Momment. Gab.ai provides a plugin called "Dissenter" this plugin allows you to make comments an ANY Web page.

Just went to the link, and added the first comment.
There is an option to ALSO Post the comment on GAB, which will link to the article, killing 2 birds at once.

I find this powerful, and UNLIKE my deleted DISQUS account, something I don't fear using!