Comments

Someone opined that "every object should have a comments section", but noted that "our tools are bad and the corpos pushing them are very bad". This might be seen as a pro-comments stance. A skeptic could ask what exactly "every" and "object" mean, and wonder about the necessity and costs of having comments systems everywhere. Another objection is that there are many different types of comments, so how would you keep them apart (or what happens when you do not). Among other concerns.

So, what does "every" mean? Does this include a transient note object getting some bad musical idea or the other off to a synthesizer? Many, many times as I fiddle around with the code? Any old region of data storage doing who knows what? (Yes, such regions may be "objects" according to the C spec.) Or are the objects online thingies that must (for some reason) have a comments section attached? What if the author does not want to have comments directly associated with a work? The author may hate comments, or may feel that comments would spoil the aesthetic, or more practically they may have neither the time nor the inclination to setup, maintain, and moderate a comments system. How can you write a (somehow, good) tool for someone who does not want what the tool provides? Certainly comments can be hosted elsewhere, much as an audience may mill and murmur outside the concert hall.

As to types of comments, there can be differences between a barracks, a salon, a campfire, a good restaurant, etc. A notion here is how likely and appropriate a bean fart scene would be. Now bean fart scenes are part and parcel of "Blazing Saddles" or "Beavis and Butt-head", but may be less than welcome in other contexts. So if you have one comments system for an object, how do you keep the bean fart folks from taking over the place? That's right, moderation! The C— word! Or that some number of users will flee to other places. Or by having suitable barriers of entry. Generally multiple environments exist; there are pubs with dubious controls on age limits that may tend towards the rowdier side, while a nearby hotel bar might shoo them younger folks out so a quiet drink and discussion can be had. Therefore one might expect multiple different comment systems (or none) tailored to particular needs and expectations: barracks chatter, unwinding, The Poker Club, etc.

Computers are different than a pub or whatever; in particular, they can record everything for much longer than may be expected. Regime changes may be problematic if old comments can be dredged up, though regimes of that sort may use any excuse whatsoever, so do not need stray party comments from 1999 to find fault. Data mining, leaks, and privacy are probably more relevant if less catastrophic; the noise at a pub cannot go very far, unlike a comment that lingers for a while.

Maybe I'm jaded on comments systems from having to press the "temporarily allow all scripts on this page" button too many times, or from trying not to read what folks had written on YouTube, way back around 2010 or so. It took a while longer to completely sour on the modern web. There is a more recent smolnet vibe that the quality of comments on, say, "Hacker News" has gone downhill. (The Hacker News commentariat tends to be hostile towards Gemini in particular or the smolnet in general.) This suggests that a comments section may be something like a sourdough starter and can be healthy, or not, depending on the environment, the denizens, what they are being fed, etc.

P.S. "The Poker Club" mentioned above was part of the Scottish Enlightenment where certain folks (elite literati) met and exchanged views. Historians and biographers may wish to know what was discussed; on the other hand, much of the commentary was probably of no lasting value (as opposed to other outcomes, such as books, that may have resulted from or been inspired by the comments).