Columbia Countercurrent was built on a simple premise: this region does not need permission to tell the truth about itself. From the beginning, this publication has committed to process, transparency, and accountability — inviting tips, documentation, corrections, and community insight. Until now, one limitation has remained: conversation could only move in one direction.

As of today, that changes. Commenting is now enabled on Columbia Countercurrent.

This decision is rooted in civic function, not metrics. A community publication that does not allow public response is incomplete. Trust is demonstrated through visibility — including visible disagreement. Reporting can surface facts, but comments can surface lived experience, overlooked context, counterpoints, and nuance that formal records often miss.

The purpose of comments is straightforward: to add relevant facts and documentation, raise good‑faith questions, challenge interpretations with evidence, and share grounded perspectives. If something is incorrect, the comment section is one place to say so. If context is missing, readers can supply it. Disagreement, when specific and evidence‑based, strengthens credibility rather than undermining it.

Clear boundaries remain essential. Comments will not serve as a venue for unverified allegations, personal attacks, threats, doxxing, harassment, or campaign messaging dressed as discussion. This publication exists to scrutinize power — not to facilitate mob behavior.

Commenters may use real names, pseudonyms, or anonymity. That choice protects individuals in a small community where personal and professional retaliation is real. But anonymity does not remove responsibility. Assertions will be scrutinized. Claims will be questioned. The publication remains accountable for what it prints; commenters remain accountable for what they post.

Moderation will be light but firm. Content violating core boundaries will be removed, but criticism of our reporting, framing, or tone will not. Should moderation concerns become recurring, patterns and standards will be documented publicly. Transparency does not end at the article body.

This change comes at a time when local journalism is fragile nationwide. As newsrooms shrink and social media platforms amplify rumor and outrage, nuance and verification often disappear. Columbia Countercurrent is not interested in replicating that dynamic. Instead, this comment section represents an experiment in structured, accountable, evidence‑based disagreement — a civic space rather than a battlefield.

Readers should never trust any publication blindly. Watch how we behave, how we correct, and how we respond to criticism. Now, readers can also watch how we handle public dialogue. If this project succeeds, it will not be because it is loud, but because it remains rigorous, transparent, and participatory.

The floor is open.