4 ms·
Oh wow, this is very similar to an idea I've had on the back burner for a while. My idea was to crowdsource small units of information as news - atomic statemen
by tenaciousDaniel 7y ago
Oh wow, this is very similar to an idea I've had on the back burner for a while. My idea was to crowdsource small units of information as news - atomic statements that correlate to one "fact". i.e. "There was an accident on highway 70". Users could then upvote or downvote based on a set of criteria (grammar, truth, atomicity, etc).
Your site needs some CSS love, but otherwise very cool!
- wayoutthere 7y agoI had been playing with something similar, but I’ve come to the conclusion that any anonymous aggregator / community at any scale runs into the same problem: eventually the incentives of the bad actors to behave badly start to outweigh the incentives of good actors to participate productively. Once that happens, it inevitably runs off the good actors behaving somewhat altruistically and leaves you with an increasingly toxic user base that ideologically slants to one extreme or the other. Sure, you can try to play both sides; but then you just end up with 2 toxic user bases at war with each other (which I’m not sure is any better, and certainly more expensive for the platform owner). See also YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, MySpace, Twitter, etc. Instagram is pretty far down this path as well. Unless you have an editorial process that involves real humans with the ability to censor bad actors, this whole situation seems inevitable (remember private editorial censorship is not government censorship)