I wonder whether any significant attempts have been made around overcoming the limits I see below. Have they succeeded or failed, and why? What are the alternatives?
Observations:
1. Anonymity: Anonymity contributed to /b/'s creativity and originality. /b/ was quite funny at some point, and there were some interesting discussions to be had. Lots of great music and book tips to be found. There was and still is no merit system. Things went to shit around the time that the idea of "newfags" came in, and when those "newfags" formed the "We Are Legion" identity, losing the original anonymity. It seems that a concentration of power, identity and ideas can arise even under anonymity.
2. Merit: HN solves merit to some extent. Points on comments are not immediately visible; the colour just changes a bit. Flagged (and thus hidden) posts deal with flamewars quite well, but at what cost? I would personally prefer accountability, and I would like to see the content regardless. Like in any competitive system, power concentrates in a small minority of ideas.
3. Moderation: Moderation on HN is quite opaque. This opacity actually seems to enforce staying in line, being "civil". Fair enough. One is never quite sure when or where the flag comes from, when or why the article ends up on the front page. HN must rightly maintain its reputation.
Ideas and questions:
How to build a moderated, unmoderated or self-moderating message board system with a diversity of ideas?
How to build a system where people can leave their egos at the door, can be open about their opinions, but also open to changes of their ideas?
Is this possible, and should it be possible?
Could ideas of genetic algorithms or other sorts of randomness be applied to perturb concentrations of power in moderation and ideas, and could this be done in a decentralised fashion, or is decentralisation necessary? Maybe what we have here is simply the most fit solution?
