| I do respectfully disagree with you. The bump model allows chaos wherein you, the reader, must critically evaluate everything with no preconceived notions or pre-filtering. This is how you question, re-evaluate, and sharpen your knowledge through productive debates. There are diamonds and gems in "flat", bump-structured fora, that do not exist in other group-think, mass-consensus-based sites. Why does the average quality of information matter? You are making a trade-off for convenience. It is indeed convenient to accept common group-think. If you are critical enough to recognize low quality posts on bump model sites, why are you concerned with low quality posts? Read on to the next post. Insert the meme here of Cypher stating that he doesn't even see the code anymore, but the remixed version of "I don't even see the shitposts and shills anymore." >I'd like to see an example of a successful popular forum that implements such in reality. You know what they are, but I will elect to avoid an instaban by posting them here. |
You cannot list them, because I already have and I have not been instabanned.
There is not actually much chaos in these supposed "bastions of free speech". Because in practice, threads are often created by highly motivated users and can be brigaded by coordinated groups (IRC/Discord groups). Even without so, culture and groupthink emerges simply because people mimic each other.
This is the problem with all utopian first-principles liberty thinking, in practice, they fall prey to the same easily observable defects in human nature. Thus, forums like hackernews thrive because of competent moderation in their stead.
High average information quality is a top 3 important metric for browsing any content on the internet, and quality does not "emerge" effectively through this supposed "diamond in the rough" system.