5 ms·

Looks like they want to build a open-source discussion API with identity management (so people can be anonymous) and good moderation tools. So you can spin-up a

by Buetol 12y ago

Looks like they want to build a open-source discussion API with identity management (so people can be anonymous) and good moderation tools. So you can spin-up a forum, a comment box or even an HN-like community with the same API (ala Discourse/Disqus). I don't know if I would bet on their success (see Persona, another great idea that flopped) but, a least, there are trying something big.

001sky 12y ago
with identity management (so people can be anonymous) love this. It will be amazing when faceless, nameless people are allowed to comment without vituperative editing/obfuscation on anything the NYT publishes--given NYT is a brand around telling people what to think. They are currently the ultimate "don't talk back" old-media platform.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Well, most comments on the net are utter shite. I don't blame them. Hacker News is different, but you don't have to go further than arstechnica to see the start of rapidly declining comment quality. A mainstream publication like NYT? Hats of to them if they manage an open discussion that's not just trolling, hatred, keyboard warriors and bigotry. I'll believe it when I see it. Just read the comments to The Economist. You'd think such an archetypically highbrow publication would have highbrow comments. You'd be wrong. Only niche websites have good comments. I guess some spamfilter-like technology could be applied to filter out bad ones, though. Wikipedia also has an engine to filter out bad edits. Should have lots in common.
  - Crito 12y ago
    I find it interesting to compare "second tier" 4chan boards like /g/ (technology) to the discussion boards of other websites (like arstechnica). Typically, a place like /g/ compares very well, if not better. Sites like to blame things like the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory", but I think most of the blame lays on the site for having poor moderation.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      4chan's moderation is mostly just filtering for child porn. /g/ being good is because it's a niche place. Proper moderation costs proper money, and proper moderation doesn't scale. Moderation can't be the solution.
      - Buetol 12y ago
        But crowd-sourced moderation like reddit/HN scales really well: Let the users do the hard work of flagging/voting and a small community of moderators to do orientation-related work.
      - Crito 12y ago
        Outside of /b/ (and one or two 'containment' boards), they do a pretty decent job of modding out hate-speech. Throughout, even on /b/, they keep shitposting (posts intended to do nothing but lower the signal/noise ratio, pushing active discussions towards expiration) way down. I would argue down below the levels seen even on default subreddits. Reddit has a serious shitposting problem.
- dublinben 12y ago
  I'll probably read the NYT less if they start giving a platform to the kind of idiots who comment on newspaper stories. I've never seen a news site with a comment section worth reading, let alone one that is actually constructive.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    the kind of idiots who comment on newspaper stories Is this some kind of post-narcissistic cognitive dissonance? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7915793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7915793
    - jqm 12y ago
      Yes, that was a bit strange. Posting a comment about idiots who post comments. Of course HN is not technically a news site but still.... I would like to see more quality on news comments. For some perverted reason I enjoy reading political discussion (yes, I agree, it is a waste of time), but this is usually marred by the vast majority of comments being mindless, repetitive and full of hatred. I already know Obama is a Muslim Communist Homosexual who wasn't born in the US and is out to destroy America. And I already know the Koch brothers are out to destroy the last vestiges of women's liberty by buying up the government and polluting our environment. (please don't make me explain sarcasm) I yearn for some serious informed reader opinion and discussion on news stories. Hopefully the Mozilla effort helps with this.
      - 001sky 12y ago
        the kind of idiots who comment on newspaper stories This also describes the NYT editorial board.

by Buetol 12y ago

001sky 12y ago

with identity management (so people can be anonymous) love this. It will be amazing when faceless, nameless people are allowed to comment without vituperative editing/obfuscation on anything the NYT publishes--given NYT is a brand around telling people what to think. They are currently the ultimate "don't talk back" old-media platform.

tormeh 12y ago
Well, most comments on the net are utter shite. I don't blame them. Hacker News is different, but you don't have to go further than arstechnica to see the start of rapidly declining comment quality. A mainstream publication like NYT? Hats of to them if they manage an open discussion that's not just trolling, hatred, keyboard warriors and bigotry. I'll believe it when I see it. Just read the comments to The Economist. You'd think such an archetypically highbrow publication would have highbrow comments. You'd be wrong. Only niche websites have good comments. I guess some spamfilter-like technology could be applied to filter out bad ones, though. Wikipedia also has an engine to filter out bad edits. Should have lots in common.
- Crito 12y ago
  I find it interesting to compare "second tier" 4chan boards like /g/ (technology) to the discussion boards of other websites (like arstechnica). Typically, a place like /g/ compares very well, if not better. Sites like to blame things like the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory", but I think most of the blame lays on the site for having poor moderation.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    4chan's moderation is mostly just filtering for child porn. /g/ being good is because it's a niche place. Proper moderation costs proper money, and proper moderation doesn't scale. Moderation can't be the solution.
    - Buetol 12y ago
      But crowd-sourced moderation like reddit/HN scales really well: Let the users do the hard work of flagging/voting and a small community of moderators to do orientation-related work.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Outside of /b/ (and one or two 'containment' boards), they do a pretty decent job of modding out hate-speech. Throughout, even on /b/, they keep shitposting (posts intended to do nothing but lower the signal/noise ratio, pushing active discussions towards expiration) way down. I would argue down below the levels seen even on default subreddits. Reddit has a serious shitposting problem.
dublinben 12y ago
I'll probably read the NYT less if they start giving a platform to the kind of idiots who comment on newspaper stories. I've never seen a news site with a comment section worth reading, let alone one that is actually constructive.
- 001sky 12y ago
  the kind of idiots who comment on newspaper stories Is this some kind of post-narcissistic cognitive dissonance? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7915793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7915793
  - jqm 12y ago
    Yes, that was a bit strange. Posting a comment about idiots who post comments. Of course HN is not technically a news site but still.... I would like to see more quality on news comments. For some perverted reason I enjoy reading political discussion (yes, I agree, it is a waste of time), but this is usually marred by the vast majority of comments being mindless, repetitive and full of hatred. I already know Obama is a Muslim Communist Homosexual who wasn't born in the US and is out to destroy America. And I already know the Koch brothers are out to destroy the last vestiges of women's liberty by buying up the government and polluting our environment. (please don't make me explain sarcasm) I yearn for some serious informed reader opinion and discussion on news stories. Hopefully the Mozilla effort helps with this.
    - 001sky 12y ago
      the kind of idiots who comment on newspaper stories This also describes the NYT editorial board.