This is great; wonderful; extraordinary: news sites to start charging readers to comment on articles. Not wholly new, but great. Publishers used to pay authors for content; now, authors pay publishers for publishing their content. Newspapers used to charge to read the articles; now, reading the articles are free, but commenting on them--"publishing" yourself, in a small way--costs.
Great censorship opportunity, of course. Mandating real names to comment will naturally stifle what most people say, lessening the danger of the internet spreading anticorporate ideas. And yet, without the blathering of the proles, professional ball movement and old seasons of I Love Lucy will feel even less relevant, and how will they be kept in line? The Outer Party can be shut up by cost-modding comments, but if the proles aren't permitted anonymous blather, their ability to sort-of connect in a sort-of reality will be even further compressed, and the necessary quantities of drug production rise. Are they really that close to robotic workers, that they feel comfortable beginning the last shutdown of the last shutdown of the last shutdown of social relationships (e.g., people arguing on the Post's website)? Or is it just that increasingly legalized marijuana will allow enough people to stone away the pain until entering memory care wards at age 45, then donating their bodies "to science" at age 50?
God, how heartwarming those commercials will be. "I just felt I could give so much back." And then your kids can sneer at all the 51-year-olds who still go to the store, using their bodies, the selfish bastards, when everyone knows there are so many war orphans out there who could use them way more.