The space for great discussions is nearly limitless in the digital world. The internet is connected to most people thus those people can get together and discuss.
Online discussions are easily derailed though, more so than in person. Since people feel little shame in interjecting their opinions that have nothing to do with the discussion taking place. And human nature being what it is, someone always engages with the off topic people and, BAM, the online discussion about birds is now about Trump.
You can say “don’t touch the poop!” but someone always touches the poop.
And there is no way to easily get the train back on the tracks. The linear commenting systems of the internet follow the derailed comments before the comments that are on topic can be seen. A single idiot in a discussion, and there is always one, ruins the party.
Every party has a pooper but online the party pooper isn’t stnding agains the wall but is dancing in the punch bowl.
Nested comments are a disaster for good convos. They lead the mind away from thinking to reacting and good times turn to rising blood pressure.
The final outcomes for the networks are then chaos, fiefdoms, or censure. Chaos is the norm as seen on X or on Facebook and some Facebook groups. Discord groups can be better but those become fiefdoms sooner or latter. A Discord group is either technical, meaning ask question for specific answer or a fiefdom like a subReddit.
Technical forums such as Discord for a computer language are horrible places to chat. People understand that any form of talking like a normal person will lead to chaos and that’s not what those groups want.
The other option is censorship. We also see Meta taking this path. So what can be said is staid, uninteresting, or contrary to truth. More hot diet tips and trends to chase but no place to have a meaningful discussion that seeks truth.
Networks grow by being high quality. The quality of the network is the most important thing and yet the value of a network is n squared. The network needs more people and it needs people who want to join the network but can’t for some good reason.
New users bring tension and the same old debates. And the average quality of the network member usually declines rapidly. The same old debates and topics are discussed in the same old way and the lack of intellectual stimulation is noticeable to the older network members.
The network is tested and the response must be chaos, fiefdoms, or censure. There seems to be no simple option to keep things as they were in the good old days of the network. The network connects more but the value of the each connection is less.
Facebook and Instagram have changes their algorithms to make their networks less about connection to people and more about entertainment. The feed isn’t your friends or an interests but rather a menagerie of videos and photos of things you didn’t seek out.
A real part of the network is lost and the network is revealed to not be about your social graph but to connect to Meta itself. That is the graph. You and Zuckerburg.
And since online discussion isn’t working on the Meta networks, why not become an entertainment channel? An entertainment channel with commercials that so get you and that you can easily share the the content you like with people you know.
It’s making lots of money so something is correct in this logic.
But the sad part of the internet is that there is no good place to go to talk about a topic. X seems intent on destroying itself with misunderstanding the network. Even Musk has been complaining about how bad the “for you” feed has become. Unless there are major shakeups at X the issues will only get worse. X will continue to optimize towards the sensational and away from the organic growth of power users gaining a following overtime.
All of these platforms are single post driven and not discussion driven. The replies are buried and the power users who drive the platforms have no reason to directly to engage in a meaningful way. The way to win as a power user is to keep posting one liners and memes. The game is rigged and the players gotta play.
And the solution so far is to entertain people so they won’t talk and rely on professional internet posters. Imagine thinking that in say 2003? But that is our reality now.
This is part of the reason I invented graph conversations. The conversation is the star not the hype. The conversation doesn’t disappear for whatever the next sensation is but can be visited and grown for years. There is still space for the funny and wacky but it doesn’t derail the good.
As you can see from the video above the conversation starts with a simple idea and then grows from there in the form of a graph. By organizing a conversation this way, there can be depth and discovery and the conversation can go in many different directions without ever getting lost.
For those with Substack audiences this can be a great way to let your followers and subscribers talk about your articles.
The above video shows a small graph conversation about Google. The question is “should Google have stayed a search engine and invested the rest like a VC or gone into the other business like they have?” That is a conversation that can go a lot of places from return on capital, business simplicity, competition, regulatory hurdles and so on. A linear conversation could never handle this type of inquiry and nested comments would be a mess.
If you would like to explore graph conversations for your Substack followers let me know and I will set you up. It can be a great way to add value for those who are your paid subscribers to get something other than pay walling your worst posts.