[MaxfordAndSons]

> It seems to me that the purpose is to further constrict dissent and control the message.

I think you're ignoring the historical aspect here. Most news sites (especially ones for originally print/broadcast media) just threw together a commenting function at some point in the past 20 years because it was an easy thing to do to increase engagement. This was both before lots of people discovered internet trolling as a significant past-time, and before US politics were as polarized as they are today. These organizations never intended to be host to a "community" (though they may use that language in marketing).

Also what exactly does it mean to "dissent" against a news publication? What are you consenting to them doing in lieu of that? You can act against them with your clicks and dollars. And isn't "controlling the message" literally the existential purpose of any publication?

[zigzigzag]

What does it mean to dissent? Go look at the Guardian. They have been progressively eliminating comments sections on their stories. If you go look at the comments sections that are left it's pretty obvious why: the articles are often crap and the comments point it out. Obviously the "journos" take offense at that and start telling each other how horrible the comments are and how full of trolling it is.

In reality the comments are often pretty on point. The Guardian seems to have dropped off a cliff quality-wise since Rusbridger stopped being the editor = many stories are either hopelessly biased, hysterical, or demonstrate profound hypocrisy. Often they are simply opinion pieces where the opinions are extremist. Closing down comments is a form of sticking their heads into the sand.