Feedback?

[nedtwigg]

The pitch is here: https://github.com/nedtwigg/mytake/wiki/Pitch A first cut at a design is here: https://github.com/nedtwigg/mytake/wiki/Design

Thoughts?

[theglennewman]

Discussion Moderation

article authors will have full control over moderating their discussion sections.

I don't like this, as I mentioned before. I think this can lead to abuse. Regardless of what the discussion section looks like, or what its purpose is, I as an author can still block out opinions or discussion based on my whims or because somebody disagrees with me.

Maybe you can balance this with the transparency (all actions by users can be seen by all other users)... But let's say someone is banned from a discussion because of something petty. Where do you warn other users "Hey this guy's being a real jerk! Here's why!!" if takes or discussions are so separate? Maybe we can have a "soft" moderating system that doesn't allow bans or drastic actions that someone can abuse.

Rating takes

You can leave feedback on an article with thumbs up and thumbs down, that's it.

I think other sites get into trouble because rating systems are so binary. What does a thumbs up mean here? Do I agree? Do I think it's interesting? If I thumb-down are other people (or the author) going to realize my personal arbitrary meaning? (Thumbs down because the formatting is bad. Thumbs down because this opinion has already been made. Thumbs up for making a great point. Thumbs up for the funny joke.)

I suggest an idea I had for another project - ratings based on some set of attributes. Make it clear what you're voting on and why... Maybe "clarity," "interest", "bias" or something similar.

I think even when you define what the thumbs-up should be people are still going to use their own interpretation, or over time they'll adapt it based on how the site changes. But maybe this is getting too far in the weeds for a first prototype... something to think about later.

What I like

It's insane that we even have to argue over what a fact is. I like the idea of starting with a tiny pool of information that's allowed, and then working together to come up with not only what's allowed next, but also that protocol of how we determine what's allowed next.

[WebsByTodd]

I've broken down some points here into new issues for discussion. I think it's important in the initial discussions to bring to light all possible options for each feature and the pros and cons of each option. At a later date we'll have to make a decision based on our own foundation of facts.

My observations that don't warrant a new thread:

It is possible to have multiple videos in a Facebook Ad, which is a way to begin a discussion supported by paid placement. It is currently impossible to contribute to an existing Facebook discussion with multiple videos though. Facebook could easily implement multiple videos per thread if it's clear this is important to users. In our proposal docs I don't think we should put too much emphasis on Facebook's lack of support for multiple videos in a single post.

[nedtwigg]

Facebook has enough engineers to add support for literally every thing. But their goal is for you to read and consume content with a sprinkling of ads - their goal is not to help you think through and support an argument. They won't add complexity or structure to their editing experience because that would hurt their primary purpose - to help you to consume content.

To be clear, I don't think we are competing with Facebook in any way - we are piggybacking on them in the same way that so much other content does.

• mytake.org is an authoring tool that helps you make a facebook post which is supported by facts.
• mytake.org is an authoring tool that helps you make a tweet which is supported by facts.
• mytake.org is an editorial portal (similar to how news.google is a news portal) for reading opinions which are well-supported by facts, and to easily see opinions which contrast the opinion you just read.

[WebsByTodd]

Yes, we aren't trying to compete with other social networks and we are trying to engineer our own content to fit into the existing shareable mediums.

When I read This Paragraph, however, I see the beginnings of an argument for our existence that says something like, "Hey, Facebook can't do this, so we're going to do it." And it's clear that Facebook certainly could do it if they wanted to.

If I understand correctly, the point of that paragraph is to illustrate that on top of our Foundation of Facts we've created a unique way for authors to create a Take. I don't think our docs should mention the lack of features on other platforms that they could easily implement, like Facebook and multiple videos per post.

[nedtwigg]

Facebook could buy my house easily if they wanted to. But they won't, because they will never want to. Facebook's goal is not for you to spend lots of time writing, their goal is for you to spend lots of time reading, hopefully reading ads. They want you to write just enough that your friends will come to see what's new and ingest some ads while they're at it. That is why Facebook will never meet the authorship need that mytake is addressing.

[WebsByTodd]

I understand your point that Facebook is a revenue generating machine and mytake is a Foundation of Truth and there is no basis for comparison or competition between the two.

I only bring awareness to this single sentence in the docs because it has a shaky foundation and I don't want to give a critic (or an investor) any reason to say, "Facebook already does this". Facebook has already implemented multiple videos per post for paid ads. Of course Facebook could do lots of things, and they already have done this.

[nedtwigg]

Facebook will allow advertisers to do lots of things that users won't be able to do. I can't post on my friends' sidebars, and I can't target my posts demographically. Facebook will never roll out those features to users. I predict multiple in-line videos will never be allowed for users either, for the reason that their incentives are for us to be reading ads rather than writing. They want ads to be more engaging than other content, so it makes sense that they will give more content creation tools to advertisers than users.

I think our pitch needs a one-sentence reason which explains why mytake is better than facebook for evidence-based political speech, and I think the sentence we have is accurate as it pertains to users. But I'm sure it's possible to have a better one, and if you find it, by all means put it in :)