Hacker News Reader

Comment by aaron-santos | Hacker News Reader

The customers ultimately. Moderators should produce moderations which result in something people think is worth paying for. I'm thinking of a multi-rooted aggregation system. Wikipedia is an example of a single-rooted system.

View on HN

What qualities do you think that would incentivize in a moderation system? I'm not feeling that tendency to share less misinformation is one of them, and I'd fear that richer people would have more power to control the narrative in such a system by effectively bribing moderators.

Apologies if there is something about "nano-payment-funded distributed and syndicated moderation" that I'm not getting.

Commodifying and creating a market for accuracy-driven moderation among other types of moderation shifts the conversation toward the question "Is misinformation a market failure?" If that's the case then we have a much more interesting discussion on our hands.

But much like ratings systems are actually used as approval/disapproval systems, such a system would instead come to represent ‘what is the most profitable moderation’. Such a market would optimise towards profit, not quality.

That's a critique of all markets. I'm down.

100%. The insight there I guess being a need to choose carefully which areas you allow market dynamics to be introduced, or at least make sure you know what the medium of exchange really is because that's what the market players will optimize towards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com