4 ms·

Should the author have the privelage of moderating their comments? They could shave off all the comments that threaten the authors argument. Suddenly its become

• grzm 10y ago
  It's a complex subject, isn't it? I can see that possibly be an issue, and some might abuse it, just as others may use annotations in an abusive fashion as well. I can sympathize with sites wanting to some level of moderation, at least to remove abuse. How one does that is a challenge.
  • tikl1 10y ago
    As said in others answers, there will be multiple annotations sources so each one will have it's own moderation to do and users will have the choice to subscribe to any or all of them. Therefore the moderation will not have anything to do with the content owner. It's comparable to reddit or HN : would you complain that content owner have no control over discussion about their content on those sites ?
• skybrian 10y ago
  Debates don't have to happen on the original website. We have debates about all sorts of web pages on Hacker News (and Reddit, and Twitter, and so on), and it works out fine. Everyone knows how this works. Authors can moderate what appears on the same web page (their own site's comments, if any) but not what appears in other places (Twitter, Reddit, Hacker News, and so on). Putting comments from a different community on the same page as the original article is a mashup of sorts; you're mixing content from different places. This can create confusion. It seems like if such mashups exist, they should have their own URL? Suppose that when following a link from Hacker News, you get a web page with Hacker News annotations. What URL should that be? Maybe it should go on ycombinator.com, sort of like when you embed a YouTube video.