[dhirajbajaj]

Peer to peer curation of content and sharing is a great idea. But, Isn't it something thats already done on facebook, twitter, except that it isn't shared with everyone else.

for e.g.: Bill gates shares his best book on entrepreneurship on twitter, People following entrepreneurship should know about it like a recommendation and not just only followers of bill gates. Now there are many other successful VCs/advisors/entrepreneurs whose content can be recommended but accessible to only those who know about it. Does it make sense?

> very pro active process on the user side, and you would need people interested in that

Yes, its an important concern, no-one works for free. Some reward structure is required for it to work.

[ttoinou]

Yes I agree with both your points (it kinda already exists and no one works for free).

We need more people working in the information area e.g. fact checking data and news / curating (instead of copy pasting the same news everywhere). It's not easy to do of course and the biggest challenge is about how to create and structure the market for that.

One advantage of having a centralized platform like I spoked about would be to create "links of trusts" and be able to give a probability of trustworthiness for every source and news shared. For example if you trust Bill Gates, then you'll trust more people that are followed by Bill Gates. Hence the more closer to you sources are, the more you can trust them. For the example of Bill Gates also, if he follows millions of sources, his "trust score" should also decline. There must be a lot of mathematical graph properties that we can use to enhance the network like that (that could help, to follow your example, to link topics "entrepreneurship" together).

In fine that's the algorithms behind Google and Facebook I guess... All we need is an open standard to crawl and curate each of our own social graph