[IPTN]

Sure, but that is a moderated communication channel. They pick and choose what to publish and, unlike most comment sections, unmoderated content is not visible to your audience. The opaqueness of the moderation process in a world without instant mass communication (i.e. the internet) would also likely have made it unlikely for your readers (users) did not have an expectation for their messages to be quickly reviewed or published.

The other big advantage is that the only participants in channel are the newspaper and the submitter; no interaction between third parties on your platform means no flame wars or the like.

[silly-silly]

I'd love to see an in-print flame war.

[probably_wrong]

If you haven't seen it, this article [1] on the London Review of Books about Glenn Gould is a good start. It's a really long essay on why Glenn Gould is amazing while Alfred Brendel doesn't get it, only for Brendel to show up in the "comments". These comments are actually letters to the editor, so it's the world's most educated and polite internet fight.

And if you can tolerate the meme format, [2] is my favorite academic fight of all times.

[1] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v14/n06/nicholas-spice/how-t...

[2] https://twitter.com/phonologist/status/982023915319906304

[b112]

Those two guys from Twitter, are here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhrD5SVo3OU

[lr4444lr]

Ah, a time honored tradition: http://resident-theology.blogspot.com/2009/10/augustine-and-...