SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We recently discussed reddit's woes and the hiring of a new CEO. However, we have seen communities come and go for many years.
Clay Shirky wrote about his experience in 1978: "Communitree was founded on the principles of open access and free dialogue... And then, as time sets in, difficulties emerge. In this case, one of the difficulties was occasioned by the fact that one of the institutions that got hold of some modems was a high school. ... the boys weren't terribly interested in sophisticated adult conversation. They were interested in fart jokes. They were interested in salacious talk. ... the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom."
There are two clear trends. One is that less input and customization tends to grow bigger. Note how Geocities was replaced with Myspace which was then replaced with Facebook and Twitter. These newer systems take away personal freedom of expression and makes people follow a 'prescribed' system, albeit an easier one to use. The other trend is that communities that try to be truly free and open end up either stifled by that openness or give up. The only obvious exception is a platform that allows us to simply filter out everything we don't want to see, which becomes a series of the feared echo chamber. With the excessive amount of data and the build up of complex rules on how information is shared, where does this leave us? It seems that like the famous iron triangle allowing free (and legal) speech with the possibility of diverse opinions, a cohesive group, and growth only allows you to pick two.
It seems to me this is a wicked problem, perhaps unsolvable. But I wonder if the community thinks there are other design options? Is this even possible with human nature as it is?
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Justin Case on Sunday July 19 2015, @04:00PM
I've been toying with this idea for 20 years but can't figure out how to keep it from turning into yet another cesspool of shouting, insults and off-topic noise so haven't bothered to write it. Maybe someone else can improve on it.
The problem with commenting on articles (Soylent, Slash, Pipe...) is the discussion goes stale in a few days. I picture a topic based tree of assertions which can be debated essentially forever, or at least until consensus emerges.
For example, someone might make this assertion: Asians are smarter than Whites.
Others can vote the statement True or False, with or without supporting comments, or linked assertions which would then also be subject to votes and so on. Individual voters could get karma for playing fair (as judged by others).
You also need the ability to vote an assertion as badly formed. For example, there is no such thing as "Asians" or "Whites". There are just individual people, some of whom may be 90% Asian, or 40% Caucasian, or whatever.
Now, if we eventually come to fairly strong agreement on an assertion, then any parent assertions it claims to support also become stronger. If there's an area still close to 50% agree 50% disagree, you can go in and add your perspective. Redundant arguments could be so voted, or linked into the assertion they support.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday July 19 2015, @05:49PM
This is very interesting!
So something like an ontological graph of ontologies describing the possible ways of connecting concepts with statements and (dynamically) linking these together by influence and weight, which would require a consensus on at least some basic principles. Sounds a bit like math...
Where do we start?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @01:05AM
The problem with commenting on articles (Soylent, Slash, Pipe...) is the discussion goes stale in a few days. I picture a topic based tree of assertions which can be debated essentially forever, or at least until consensus emerges.
- Add another type of mod point -- points extend the life of the article on the home page.
- Move articles off the home page once contributions drop off to one or two per day?
- Move articles with "high longevity" to something like a wiki where comments can go on outside the normal flow of news.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @04:52AM
Thank you. I think you understand the thrust of what I was getting at. I've been thinking about this problem for a long time as well, although in other contexts. Like how does a social group become self-sustaining. I find your idea intriguing and would love to see an implementation of it. I wrote this article up because I was being attacked as a troll over my views on Windows Phone and had just read the 'Reddit' article. By time an honest, non-mocking response had arrived and I responded to it, the conversation had moved on. I wanted to engage in the conversation, I actually wanted insightful responses. I think in a room full of friends, maybe 5 of them, I could get that conversation. I hoped to get that here, but found too many hecklers.... but then I realized group is a group of the extremist's extremists. As in Slashdot users (often extremists) who left /. because they didn't like how /. was going and voted with their feet. So of course they would be more extreme in their view of Microsoft. That means this place, while it allows anyone to post, allowing 'free' speech, suffers from the echo chamber affect. I was trying to think of a way around that, while not making it a personal attack. I'm still not trying to attack anyone. But that was the specific problem set I was thinking about. Reddit's solution is to make a bunch of smaller echo chambers which some loose connecting tissue. A sort of miniature model of the internet. However, unlike the internet, it is run by just a handful of people. Your solution might just possibly work, but how do you stop it from being wrecked by a handful of people "in control" of the system?
- JCD
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @08:32AM
There is this thing called "credibility".
I wrote this article up because I was being attacked as a troll over my views on Windows Phone
This totally lacks it.
You weren't being attacked "as" a troll, you manifestly were a troll, and a Microsoft Troll, a rather pernicious and mendacious variety of troll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @02:18PM
You believe all people use equipment in the same way? You see no possible use case or reason that one might find value in a Microsoft phone? I recognize that you, and possibly even the majority of people don't have a use case. I even realize that MS has shot themselves in both feet from so many years of stupidity. To claim otherwise is silly. If your issue is Microsoft's credibility, attack away. At them. But to say that there is positively no use case or reason to consider using such a phone just seems absurd to me. Conflating my credibility (which admittedly is 0, but not negative) with Microsoft means someone who mostly lurks can't easily join the community if they have a different point of view. Perhaps that actually is what people see a modern troll as, someone who wants to discuss a point of view not commonly held while not being part of that community? It helps create an echo chamber. Maybe that is just nature. I'm willing to concede that. Norms must be enforced. I just wanted to hear if there was some way to avoid a strong echo chamber while still allowing for free speech. The above idea at least sparks a possibility. Perhaps though it would suffer from 'trolling'?
In spite of calling me a poisonous liar, I do appreciate your insightful response. It provided me food for thought on human nature!
- JCD