The mere fact the douche has comments disabled tells me all I need to know.
That is an entirely subjective interpretation of a decision taken by the author - did you consider the possibility that the intention behind exercising his right to switch off comments was to ensure that there is no distraction present that could potentially hijack and misdirect the audience's attention? The information is the star. People can be easily swayed and dissuaded from examining information seriously or at all, if certain influential people assert that 'this is bunk' or enough people give thumbs up to a comment made by a vociferous detractor.
Also, why do you think he is a 'douche' ? What does the author's choice of disabling comments automatically tell you?