[cluse]

In my opinion, based on 11 years of using Reddit, these things support good online conversations. I'm of the strong opinion that social media platforms should put less emphasis on general content aggregation (think of reddit's "front page of the internet) and they should put more emphasis on communities and specific topics. Twitter improved after it let you follow topics in addition to people, because topics usually provide more reasonable, more natural starting points for discussion than viral content does.

Here's my list of the best ingredients to facilitate good online discussions:

- Smaller, niche communities that allow people to talk about common interests instead of just scrolling through shallow, forgettable, crowd-pleasing posts - A voting system that lets better comments get more visibility - A website design that prioritizes discussion over pure content aggregation, which does things like providing moderation tools - A good headline for the discussion to start with. The starting point matters a lot. It helps when there is strong discouragement of editorialized and sensationalized titles. Good discussions usually don't result from a post featuring a provocative or polarizing photo or meme. A discussion is more likely to be good if it starts with a neutral title or an open question. - It's better when there is complete transparency and openness about exactly what is allowed or not allowed, encouraged or discouraged, and what gets you banned. People care more about a community when the rules are enforced fairly and predictably. Otherwise they get resentful.

[sidpatil]

Reformatted for easier reading:

- Smaller, niche communities that allow people to talk about common interests instead of just scrolling through shallow, forgettable, crowd-pleasing posts

- A voting system that lets better comments get more visibility

- A website design that prioritizes discussion over pure content aggregation, which does things like providing moderation tools

- A good headline for the discussion to start with. The starting point matters a lot. It helps when there is strong discouragement of editorialized and sensationalized titles. Good discussions usually don't result from a post featuring a provocative or polarizing photo or meme. A discussion is more likely to be good if it starts with a neutral title or an open question.

- It's better when there is complete transparency and openness about exactly what is allowed or not allowed, encouraged or discouraged, and what gets you banned. People care more about a community when the rules are enforced fairly and predictably. Otherwise they get resentful.

[webwanderings]

Agree. I have once built such a space with people I knew. It was simply via a listserv. The key ingredients you describe, are accurate. I have also been part of such small communities on other platforms built specifically with these ideals. However, the problem is, they cannot sustain themselves with such ideals alone, which ultimately leads them to their demise (irrespective of the number of dedicated people it generates). The onslaught of "social media" is like a blockbuster movie which made bizzilions of dollars rendering the small budge niche movies irrelevant.

By now, the world has moved on. People now a days seem not to care much. They'd rather keep on easily dump general content onto each other via one-click whatsapp sharing, etc.

[mariusor]

In a funny turn of events, I have put some of the same ideas into creating the project[1] I'm working on now, which wants to be a spiritual successor for (old)reddit but based on ActivityPub federation.

[1] https://github.com/mariusor/littr.go#littrme

[shpongled]

Agreed. The majority of my Reddit browsing is done on a handful of niche subs, I rarely go on any of the "front page" subreddits. As much as I enjoyed using multiple phpBB sites in the past, having a platform where I can easily find these niche groups and aggregate their content is the killer feature for me.

However, I feel like there is some upper limit to the number of users a group has before content starts going downhill. So perhaps it's a double-edged sword.

[baud147258]

I'm part of a 'Small, niche communities that allow people to talk about common interests' and I've seen some of my worst possible online exchanges there. So YMMV. It also fails on most of your other points.

[schiavi]

Hi Cluse, I would love to invite you to come evaluate https://www.confidist.com. It is a work in progress but hits on some of the items on your wish list. It isn't comment based, but completely conversation based. Anyone can create a topic for conversation, and participants are grouped for 1:1 conversations. Users rate their conversation, similar to taking an Uber, and can report abuse based on community rules. It is late for me so I will check any messages in the morning. Let me know if you have any feedback. I am eager to hear it.