3 ms·
These are good ideas that might help manage an online community! On the other hand, they would be bad for business! When a high-profile athlete weighs in on a c
by runako 4y ago
These are good ideas that might help manage an online community! On the other hand, they would be bad for business! When a high-profile athlete weighs in on a complicated geopolitical matter and then (say) gets the continent wrong, that will generate tons of engagement (money) for the platform. Plus there's no harm done. A platform probably wants that kind of content.
And the whole reason the platform wants the athlete to post in the first place is because the platform wants that person's real-world reputation to transfer over. I believe it is a property of people that they are prone to more heavily weigh an opinion from a well-known/well-liked/rich person, even if there is no real reason for that person to have a smart opinion on a given topic. This likely is not something that can be "fixed" by online community governance.
- brookst 4y agoI agree this solution wouldn't scale to all platforms; those driven by maximizing views and engagement would find it counter-productive, as you say. But that's fine. There are enough of those platforms already, and they have all the flaws we're talking about. We don't need to fix the existing ones so much as get to a world where better (by these standards) platforms exist and can compete on quality. Twitter/Reddit/etc kind of try to do that, but it's hard to get right and it's always an afterthought, like Yoshin mentioned. But maybe there's room in the market for something with higher signal to noise, that's reputation based. And reputation doesn't have to be super cerebral and dry and stodgy; reputation can be about sense of humor or whatever is appropriate for the sub-communities that evolve on the platform.