There could be a paid tier, maybe running 24/7 "thinking" on topics you ask for rather than just answering spot questions. Or more resources committed to a "mixture of experts" model, etc.
Is there a model where the contributors get paid - based on views, etc?
I am thinking there could be scheduled, similar to the reddit AMA, where 2 top persons in a field with opposite opinions can be coaxed to debate about the topic?
Both of them get a few hours to get back, and the back and forth rules can be set, and we would all be better off hearing the pros and cons from both sides.
It would have to be a different sort of reputation though. Otherwise you get people with very little knowledge that have similar amount of reputation as somebody like Jon Skeet. Also, I feel like that would make rise to more very niche issues that people would feel entitled to an answer because they paid for it.
This is why I dislike the popularity contests we call "democracy" today. If you so much as hint at the complexity of questions, if you happen to admit that something is a trade-off, or that there are risks with a policy, you're out of the system in seconds.
Not that I have a better suggestion, mind you. Maybe sortition with an advisory panel of experts? But how would the experts be chosen?
It would be easy to draw from the top ranks of some guild system -- but probably also highly inequitable, as guilds tend to restrict the profession to their likes.
It makes Jon Skeet harder to submit answers to all the questions :)
If seriously, as a passive user I would agree with your point, but as an active one I'de like to be a leader and such segmentation would encourage to achieve that. Also specific sites attract proffessionals of the subject.
Would love one. Content, media, articles and the sharing of opinions could be the new "rating" system of content, product, quality advice. Huge potential if executed properly.
Would love one. Content, media, articles and the sharing of opinions could be the new "rating" system of content, product, quality advice. Huge potential if executed properly.
It could be interesting- the challenge would be to incentivize quality and participation. And at least IMO it's much more interesting to see different perspectives argued on a topic, rather than actual rebuttal in most cases, or even "yes, and" confirmation. Certainly I don't enjoy the sort of quoting line by line and picking each apart that sometimes seems to happen on forums.
In order to incentivize good essays, something that was paid like substack, with different perspectives lined up on different topics could be interesting. Maybe with authors aware of their opponent's central arguments so they could address the same thing instead of talk past each other.
Maybe, but you really want all the discussion easily discoverable and in a central authoritative place to encourage experts in the field to find and join the conversation.
Would you pay for this? Like a couple of bucks per discussion or something?
I've thought about the same thing before but can't figure out how economics would work. Everyone expects things to be free free free nowadays.
I think it could grow into something really cool where you could have authors & other respected thought-leaders participate and have very deep, insightful conversations.
Real discussions are bidirectional. By assuming a haughty 'we hold the cards' position, and soliciting info from those looking for funding, they often ask for lots of details before promising even a comment. A better service might provide a forum for Q&A in both directions before details were shared. Ideally, it would also be global, and take centralized parties out of the equation entirely.
If the people can't even select representative well, why would they be able to decide issues well?
What would any of these proposals do to increase long term thinking? Making it easy to express opinions on 10 topics a minute seems virtually certain to increase short term shallow thinking.
In other words, in what concrete ways would any of this make anything better?
Good point. It could be interesting to make this into a multiplayer tool. Allow each member of a team to answer the questions and then focus the debate around the questions where there is the most disagreement.
How about just a meritocratic rating? Even here on HN I would appreciate some sort of weight on expert/experienced opinion. Although in theory I like the idea that every thought is judged on its own, the context of the author is more relevant the deeper the subject. That's one of the reasons I still read https://lobste.rs. It has a niche audience with industry experience.
reply