@mountainman - It’s not every time. When Inhumans or Morbius or Gotti or thousand different properties get bad reviews there is not widespread talk of review bombing. They just got bad reviews. But these companies have the data readily available, they can see when a movie is and isn’t following normal review patterns, when review bombing is occurring it’s obvious, and it’s not like everyone participating is even denying it.

And is review inflating really a problem? An unsuspecting innocent person might watch something they don’t like? Is that the scare? Versus people who have no idea what is happening who are just trying to find something to watch on a Friday night might skip over stuff they might love because of targeted campaign by people who often times didn’t even watch the show thereby leading to a show’s cancellation. They don’t feel equal.

@mountainman - And that’s the reason we should all be denouncing review bombing and no one should come on here and be defending it! Obviously when you are just looking at an aggregate honest thoughtful bad reviews and going to be lumped in with bad actors who are participating in review bombing because that’s what an aggregate is. But if we could actually successfully end review bombing then we would just be left with the actual bad reviews and people could actually see them and read them and discuss them and we wouldn’t have to defend against the nonsense.

@mountainman - the boys and the suicide squad weren't even review bombed, or at least not to any extent that it effected the user scores significantly.

Also, @Natebest, can we talk about this kind of article? We just had the threat of the comments section removed partly due to flame wars, yet articles like this get approved which are like clearly designed to get things heated in the comments.

@mountainman - honestly I think the whole review bombing thing is overblown. There's nothing inherently wrong with showing how you really don't like something. Just look at captain marvel. It was considered review bombed and had all those reviews deleted, yet the score barely improved.

@Origame - I think there may be some confusion as to what gets posted and what doesn't... There is no "approval" process for any of the content. Anyone and everyone can contribute.

Posts can be removed if they break the content and quality guidelines, but I don't see that as the case here.

With all of that being said, the review bombing (up or down depending on your opinion) is definitely something that people are talking about, so I don't see the harm here.

People can agree and disagree respectfully, or ignore completely.

@NateBest - I do understand that you don't approve articles beforehand. But you do continue to allow these articles on your platform which is what I'm talking about it.

But moving on, the reason people want to talk about review bombing is because it's highly controversial and political. Politics are kept out of polite conversations for a reason. As mountainman here insinuated, these kind of articles have led to heated discussions before.

Josh also isn't making things better by making his views known and the other side of the discussion as unreasonable as possible. His initial comment about this being done specifically to projects led by minorities and women implies it's done because of it being led by them. Of course anyone who hates the projects listed here and agrees with the low scores is gonna take offense to effectively being called a bigot.

Now look, you can allow whatever you want here. But it's really not fair to put all of this on the commenters without also looking into the kind of articles here as well.

A suggestion is maybe not allowing review bombing to be a topic, or at least making it so the writer only states the facts on the topic, instead of his opinions.

But if you're genuinely hoping to find a way to keep the comment section, then I think it's only reasonable to look at these issues from both sides here.

@Origame - Yes, I see your point. Sticking to the facts is a requirement for "news", but not editorials/lists.

I think a lot of his will probably clear up when I roll out the ability to turn comments on and off for posts. Posts like this (i.e. that aren't presented in a neutral manner) will most likely have their comments turned off.

@Origame - it usually feels like Josh writes these kinds of articles so he can virtue signal.

@Origame - I must have missed something... I didn't see anything in that post where Josh called called anyone out...

Yes, adding the ability to turn the comments off on some posts *would* remove them for that particular post.

Just because the ability will be there doesn't mean that it will be used very often. I don't really see it being used except for in the rare instance where the comments have turned so toxic that there's not much of a choice.

I would rather be able to do that than remove the ability to comment all together.

@Origame - I'm confused and obviously missing something in the conversation here... Political comments on non-political-related posts are already against the rules. You do realize that's been a rule ever since the 2016 election, right? I delete comments like that pretty much every day and have even went as far as deleting "news" articles about different actors backing candidates.

@Origame - When I use the term "political" or "politics" it's in reference to government. So I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree on this as I don't particularly see review bombing, in and of itself, as political.

I've updated all posts to show when something *may* include a user's opinion or be editorialized. I would suggest treating said content as such.