3 ms·
A couple of problems with that. First you have the noise created by big egos clashing, and second, you’d lose the anonymous “accout made just for this” exposees
by GW150914 8y ago
A couple of problems with that. First you have the noise created by big egos clashing, and second, you’d lose the anonymous “accout made just for this” exposees and stories from the trenches. I think in the former case it would become painfully clear that you’d still find a great deal of noise, albeit from different sources, and in the latter a loss of richness. Plus you’d be setting up whoever ran the site as a gatekeeper or who is a “star” and that is ripe for abuse.
- natecham 8y agoI agree the two problems you presented can be tough to solve and are interesting problems to consider: 1. Managing egos can become a problem, maybe some sort of ability for users to tag comments with logical fallacies to try and encourage rational arguments? 2. Could users use some sort of anonymous verification for throwaway comments? A global key to sign their anonymous comment? There's definitely work done in this category, I found https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-36213-2_17 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-36213-2_... after a quick google. I think you bring up a slightly different point in the end, the gatekeeper/moderator is a much harder problem to solve and related to the clash of egos. Ultimately, rewarding critical thinking, limiting power of censorship and growing the community organically are key here