[webdog]

I feel like this gives too much weighting to the discourse around a topic or article (Ironic, given I'm doing the same thing in this thread). One of the reasons I loathe twitter and reddit is the conversations and comments in threads are just plain awful a lot of times. This seems to create the potential to amplify that while reading an article or watching a video in real-time, creating a competing interest of consuming media vs opinions.

This is critical feedback, but I don't think this solves the problem around propagation of misinformation, bad actors, or opinion vacuums. The reason I dislike the modern web is that conversation and engagement are the key drivers for a site, the content second. This has, in my opinion, created the worst-case scenario in which the value of an opinion of statement is so commodified that the only way to create value from discourse is to have a lot of it, and most of it ends up being toxic and terrible because people seem to only create negative discourse en masse, or at least the current system has been gamified to do just that.

[ballenf]

Reddit and Twitter are toxic in large part due to the drive to accumulate fake internet points. Sqwok doesn't seem to have a voting system, so maybe it won't attract the type of person who likes to provoke others just for the endorphin rush that comes with upvotes.

[holler]

hey thank you for checking out sqwok and giving feedback, I appreciate it.

> This is critical feedback, but I don't think this solves the problem around propagation of misinformation, bad actors, or opinion vacuums.

I certainly agree that it isn't going to solve all of these problems. The genesis of this project actually goes back to ~2015 and predates the current social medial landscape. But the challenges will be there and have to be addressed, while balancing building something people enjoy enough to use and help grow.

One problem I see with sites like Twitter, is that there isn't _enough_ discourse. Anyone can make a statement, go viral, and there isn't a true "conversation" around it. There are threaded comments but it's not the same, and the idea here is to explore building real time conversations around those statements, and allow more critique. I'd like to explore building ways to reward messages that are relevant such as letting users nominate a message if it adds value.

Additionally there should be basic features such as muting/blocking people you don't want to see, and am openminded to hear other ideas people have.

I will say that HN is a shining example of how to keep a certain level of civility on a discussion site, but as it's been mentioned before, scaling that to a much larger size may be very difficult.

[webdog]

>One problem I see with sites like Twitter, is that there isn't _enough_ discourse. Anyone can make a statement, go viral, and there isn't a true "conversation" around it.

I think understand your point, but I disagree with it to an extent. The platform has to put a value on contributing extended discourse, and incentivize users to contribute more than hot-takes. I think what you're suggesting is that you want to create even more discourse to further devalue commentary to the point where it doesn't go viral?

>Additionally there should be basic features such as muting/blocking people you don't want to see, and am openminded to hear other ideas people have.

Agreed, part of the problem I have with twitter and reddit, is that my mute and block lists end up filtering legitimate, valuable content. Secondly, I want to be aware of what folks on the other side of the aisle are talking about, but I don't want to give platform to folks who routinely act as intentional bad actors who peddle in disinformation and conspiracies (Dan Bongino immediately comes to mind). Twitter and Reddit both fail in some regards:

* Reddit doesn't allow me to hide subreddits from the front page, so even if I don't actively subscribe to something, there is a chance I'll see content from it. the_donald being a great example of that in 2016. Yes, if I just stay on my home, these subreddits won't show up, but there is a finite amount of content in my own feed before I wander off into the engagement-land of /r/all, or /r/popular.

* Reddit doesn't allow me to block users unless I report them for something, such as spam. Though, I admit the block works effectively once completed.

* Twitter allows me to Mute users, but their engagement algorithm will still show these Muted users in my timeline as hidden tweets. Of course I'm curious if someone I follow RT's something as mysterious as a hidden tweet, so of course I click it. A muted user, in my opinion, is someone I am personally shadowbanning. I want no trace.

* Twitter doesn't allow me to mute keywords in bulk. Sure, maybe I could script this out, but I do not enjoy that twitter intentionally makes it difficult for me to filter out content that I don't. Additionally, the same problem happens in the previous point. For example, I mute references to Donald Trump and Joe Biden to keep my twitter feed somewhat reasonable, but more often than note, those "mysterious" hidden tweets seem to pop up.

>I will say that HN is a shining example of how to keep a certain level of civility on a discussion site, but as it's been mentioned before, scaling that to a much larger size may be very difficult.

Agreed. It's the only social-site I don't mind backing up with my own real-life identity as I find this to be highly valuable content. Content moderation has a lot to do with it, as I believe it sets the standards and generally attracts an audience that is civil (Though reddit was also like this in its early days, but that may just be rose-tinted glasses), but given a large enough audience, a platform becomes perceived as right more than privilege, and moderation becomes a battle against people thinking they're being censored, rather than moderated.

[curioushacking]

One of the reasons I enjoy hacker news is that the discussions on many posts are often richer than the post content. This site has managed to maintain consistent, high quality discussions unlike reddit and twitter. Without strict moderation however, is there a proven way to incentivize or gamify rich discussion?

[edoceo]

Other sites have an incentive to drive (sometimes hostile) engagement for revenue. Maybe removing that mis-aligmnet with visitors and operators is a good first step