![Image 1 — Why take sponsor money just to let the comments ruin their reputation? [The Lovin Malta comment-locking paradox]](https://preview.redd.it/qxo371kumd2h1.jpg?width=632&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ede1bd37e6b252028bd7dee5a0f98231372937ef)
![Image 2 — Why take sponsor money just to let the comments ruin their reputation? [The Lovin Malta comment-locking paradox]](https://preview.redd.it/ftly51kumd2h1.jpg?width=836&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ca6aba8a057dac5c5c0b268f4eb7a77d12c7d6dd)
Why take sponsor money just to let the comments ruin their reputation? [The Lovin Malta comment-locking paradox]
The recent Lovin Malta sponsored election post and the reaction surrounding it made me think about the decision to limit or close comments around the post.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1STfPMZVs4/
Because if you actually go to the page, some comments are still visible — and some of them are fairly aggressive. Which creates a strange situation. On one hand, comments were restricted. On the other hand, some negative comments still remained visible anyway.
If moderation rules exist, theoretically they could have simply moderated the discussion differently, removed specific comments, filtered things more carefully, or handled it another way entirely. Btw there's a lot of ways to manage that and that's another story. Instead, the final result created a very odd impression: the comments were limited, but the visible reaction that remained arguably damaged the atmosphere around the sponsored post even more.
After all, if this is a paid political post, the media outlet essentially failed to deliver. If you accept money for sponsored content, the expectation is that you protect that investment. Once they made the decision to lock the comment section, they essentially "froze" the aggressive comments on the page for everyone to see, while stripping the sponsor of any chance for a normal discussion.
Why choose a half-measure that locks the thread but leaves the toxicity perfectly visible? What is the actual internal logic operating here, and why would a platform choose a moderation style that satisfies neither the audience nor the sponsor?