I agree with this sentiment. I was really surprised by the response to Dave's post yesterday. It was extremely disappointing to read such vitriol over what seem

I agree with this sentiment. I was really surprised by the response to Dave's post yesterday. It was extremely disappointing to read such vitriol over what seemed like a fairly straightforward and useful observation about acquisitions. The real question is how do we fix it? I have often thought that what I would prefer would be a fully curated news feed rather than one managed by the upvote system. But this wouldn't seem to work well in practice. I would be relying on the persistent effort of a small number of curators, who might get sick or bored or go on holiday or they just might never exist in the first place - who wants to hand curate a new feed for some other people? But what if we provided a very simple tool for producing a curated feed, so a curator could just right click in their browser to add a link to their feed. What then if we allowed the readers to aggregate these curators? The aggregation is yet another (semi)curated feed which can be followed for further aggregated. This could (possibly) produce a single feed very similar to HN, but it seems likely that we could easily seek out a feed which was heavy on CS theory and light on VC politics (or the other way around). The biggest challenge that I see is making it engaging to the curators. Right now we allow submissions and you get points for submitting something that gets upvoted or for making upvoted comments. I think we can make the experience rewarding but there are a lot of details, wherein live devils. Maybe it sounds like I just recreated reddit, but this system would not have any votes, just aggregation of curated feeds. Any thoughts?