[HN Gopher] Show HN: Pairagraph - our attempt to build a new hig...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Pairagraph - our attempt to build a new high-quality
discussion forum
Author : jonathanrstern
Score : 61 points
Date : 2021-02-03 16:24 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pairagraph.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (pairagraph.com)
| fishtoaster wrote:
| As a long-time fan of high-level discourse and debate, I love
| this! Reminds me of https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/.
|
| Minor UI suggestion: When I opened it up to check it out, I
| clicked on a random dialogue
| (https://pairagraph.com/dialogue/b88167fd706941e8ac468283b51a...)
| to see what the deal was. I was very confused because it looked
| like just a short article - clicking around didn't reveal any
| kind of discussion anywhere. It wasn't for a few more minutes
| that I realized this was a multi-part debate where only one side
| had spoken. Something like "This dialogue will continue when
| Jason Calacanis responds" at the bottom of the article would have
| helped a lot. Heck, some kind of "notify me when he does" option
| would be _super_ cool. :)
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| We love Intelligence Squared. It's one of our favorite
| 'competitors', along with Munk Debates!
|
| You're exactly right: It's not obvious _at all_ that Jason 's
| response is coming soon. And it needs to be. Thanks for the
| great suggestion.
| foolinaround wrote:
| Is there a model where the contributors get paid - based on
| views, etc?
|
| I am thinking there could be scheduled, similar to the reddit
| AMA, where 2 top persons in a field with opposite opinions can be
| coaxed to debate about the topic?
|
| Both of them get a few hours to get back, and the back and forth
| rules can be set, and we would all be better off hearing the pros
| and cons from both sides.
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| I think there's definitely a fun angle to explore here.
|
| Right now, everything is asynchronous. (Authors post at their
| own convenience.) But I wonder what would happen if we tried to
| host an event once a week. Something, say, for an hour or two
| one evening. It could be the top two people in a field, but
| it'd probably be interesting to bring in a few different types
| of folks as well.
|
| Right now, the format on Pairagraph is 4 entries, each 500
| words, created by alternating authors. But we've recently
| thought about what it would look like to facilitate dialogues
| with more than 2 participants.
|
| Do you have any ideas for how contributors might get paid?
| Could crypto facilitate something like that?
| drenvuk wrote:
| All I see are easy mainstream topics of discussion right now but
| I can see this being interesting. bookmarked.
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| If there's anything specific you'd like to see on the site,
| we'd love to know: https://www.pairagraph.com/suggest
| ilaksh wrote:
| It's a really interesting idea and well executed debate format.
|
| Along a similar vein for people interested in getting different
| viewpoints, please also take a look at http://improvethenews.org
| and the work of Jonathan Haidt.
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| Hadn't heard of Improve the News... Will definitely take a
| look!
|
| There are so many fledgling companies out there trying to
| improve the news, the quality of social media, etc. I really
| hope at least one of them succeeds!
| spoonjim wrote:
| Cool idea but "authority" has lost so much of its credibility in
| recent years that I wonder whether these folks will produce
| anything better than the most upvoted Reddit comment for example.
| mynameishere wrote:
| Topic: "Was Twitter Right To Have Booted Trump?"
|
| _On the one hand, I am glad that the company de-platformed
| President Trump, because there was an active threat to the US
| government that he was abetting in real time._
|
| Okay, that's false. One of the many reasons why that is false is
| because Trump was in fact telling people to go home from the
| protest. Let's take a look at the counter-point.
|
| _...by all accounts a dangerous leader who goaded his white
| supremacist followers into violent actions_
|
| Umm, that's even more false. For even more obvious reasons.
|
| So, what is the point of your new left-wing echo chamber again?
| There are plenty already--you do realize that, yes?
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Maybe you could suggest[0] that as a topic:
|
| "Were President Trump's words and actions part of the reason
| why the Capitol was stormed?"
|
| Presumably you think the answer to that is "No", in which case
| you should put yourself forward as one of the experts. If I'm
| misrepresenting your position or asking the wrong question then
| hopefully you can find a more neutral way to phrase it.
|
| [0] https://www.pairagraph.com/suggest
| [deleted]
| fareesh wrote:
| Looks great - seems similar to letter.wiki
|
| I am skeptical as to the degree to which new platforms can help
| with the fundamental problems with the "sense-making apparatus"
| in our societies. Very few folks seem to be aware of the extent
| to which the news media, and by extension, their own assumptions
| about the world are broken or skewed.
|
| It is common for even intelligent folks to dish out quips like
| the "bullshit asymmetry principle", without accounting for the
| possibility that their own framing of the world around them may
| be akin to Plato's allegory of the cave.
|
| So even if we create new platforms, if some hypothetical person
| like Mr. Cucumber on the new platform makes a compelling, well-
| reasoned, well-researched case in favor of, for example,
| restricting immigration, the formula for discrediting this person
| is to cherry pick the profiles of some people who are sharing
| their content. If you find any references to some fringe topic
| like Q in a cherry picked sample of 100 people who shared the
| content, you can associate this person with those people and
| discredit the entire thing without having to attack their
| arguments. Those followers need not even exist, they can be made
| up. Before you know it the next trending topic will be "Who is
| Mr. Cucumber, the new darling of the alt-right?". That's the end
| of anyone ever listening to them again.
|
| This is just one example - there are many such strategies
| employed online contemporarily and they are very effective.
| Inoculating against this kind of bad faith tactic is necessary to
| see any kind of progress in many spheres. Our societies all
| around the world stagnated for decades, even centuries, under
| these tactics employed by the prevailing orthodoxies. The current
| state of the Internet has allowed a technologically leveraged
| version of these tactics to prevail today.
| fwip wrote:
| For anyone else who misparsed "bullshit asymmetry principle,"
| this refers to the asymmetrical effort required to debunk vs.
| spread bullshit, and not an "asymmetry principle" which is
| bullshit.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
| fareesh wrote:
| Sorry - I added quotes to make it clearer now.
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| Well, we definitely have a difficult path ahead!
|
| I don't expect platforms like Pairagraph and Letter to change
| the world over night. But I really do believe that they _could_
| have a profound impact. As Carter and I have said in the past,
| our dream is to live in a society where it is commonplace for
| people who disagree to make genuine efforts to have
| conversations with one another. Our goal with Pairagraph is to
| create a place on the web that facilitates this.
|
| If we get there, it will be inch by inch.
| jfengel wrote:
| What do you think are the reasons that people don't already
| make genuine efforts to have conversations? And what are you
| doing to diminish them?
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| Culture + Tribalism + Most internet forums reward the
| opposite (outrage, insults, lack of nuance)
|
| We recognize we're fighting an uphill battle.
|
| Here's why I'm hopeful: All across the web, I see people
| trying to have conversations. Really _trying_ to engage. I
| think we just need better platforms. Twitter is good for
| some things, but it tends to lack nuance and amplify
| outrage. Reddit is good for other things, but it 's noisy.
|
| I may be delusional but I think there's room for another
| Internet community to emerge. One where nuance, civility,
| and substance are incentivized and rewarded.
| golemiprague wrote:
| 4chan doesn't require an "identity" but that's also creating
| other problems. Maybe it is just being human, it can't be
| perfect.
| mariodiana wrote:
| > While it may certainly be satisfying to see President Trump--by
| all accounts a dangerous leader who goaded his white supremacist
| followers into violent actions--banned [...]
|
| This is the counterpoint? They share the same assumptions.
| getcrunk wrote:
| This is a pretty cool idea! What about adding some voting when
| you do open it up to more users. (Like this person made more
| sense than the other)
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| Building something like this would definitely boost user
| engagement, which is something we've talked about wanting to
| do. I just worry that it could turn Pairagraph into something
| adversarial. At its best, we believe Pairagraph is a place for
| exploratory conversation rather than debate.
|
| It might be interesting to allow readers to vote on _who_ they
| 'd like to hear from in the future... Maybe that's a way to
| maintain a high level of dialogue quality while still allowing
| users to have a say about who and what is discussed on the
| site. What do you think about that?
| fwip wrote:
| I think Medium's "highlight" feature is one of the things
| that they did really well, allowing readers to bring
| attention to those sections which were most impactful.
| getcrunk wrote:
| That's a great idea. I would also suggest then adding just a
| one option vote, for example to star or like. Not one side or
| other but the topic itself
| dane-pgp wrote:
| To increase user engagement, what about allowing users to
| carry out threaded discussions of their own in a part of the
| UI that is distinct from the main conversation?
|
| Perhaps users should have to opt-in to seeing comments from
| the "crowd", and there should be a minimum amount of time the
| user has spent on the site (and discussions read) before they
| can comment. Also they'd have to receive a minimum number of
| upvotes for their comments before they were allowed to vote,
| etc. which would gamify it a bit.
|
| Rather than fighting the echo chambers, you could use them to
| your advantage, by requiring users to pick a side they
| support in each topic and splitting the discussions into two
| camps. That way expert A could see popular comments in
| support of their position, and expert B could see comments
| which support them instead. They could even opt to see what
| the other camp was discussing, to make sure they weren't
| misapprehending the other side's position.
|
| My other request is that you make the site work without
| JavaScript. People don't want your annoying pop-ups, and it
| should be possible to present text in a browser without
| running scripts. (Also it might be nice to have meaningful
| URLs, like Reddit has).
| nathcd wrote:
| Agreed that this is a cool idea, but I really hope they don't
| add voting. Leave the upvote/downvote noise on social media.
| jandrese wrote:
| I think voting is a helpful first pass filter to cut down on
| the noise, but it needs to be capped or it becomes a game. I
| think Slashdot made the right call by capping the votes to
| +5/-2 and being somewhat stingy with their voting points.
| They also don't allow you to post and vote on the same
| article.
|
| Any discussion system that wants to grow large and doesn't
| have a plan to deal with trolls is doomed to fail. It would
| be like building an airplane but not taking wind resistance
| into account.
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| Thanks! 'Voting' is definitely something we've considered,
| but yeah, I don't think it's the right direction for us at
| this time.
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| Hey HN! I'm Jonathan, co-founder of Pairagraph.
|
| Pairagraph is a platform for written dialogue between pairs of
| notable individuals--politicians, CEOs, philosophers, novelists,
| technologists, religious leaders, and more.
|
| We love Twitter, but it can be annoying. It's loud and noisy,
| it's replete with echo chambers, and 280 characters is not enough
| to make a real argument. Pairagraph is our attempt to push back
| on these trends and build a proper town square for the digital
| age.
|
| We're still fairly new but already have hosted 60+ dialogues,
| with contributors like Niall Ferguson, Joe Lonsdale, Balaji
| Srinivasan, Francis Fukuyama, Martin Gurri, and Om Malik.
|
| In the short run we've decided to keep our community closed--only
| certain people are able to participate in dialogues. The idea
| here is not to exclude anyone but to establish a track record of
| quality discussion before opening it up. We think that if we
| start with quality and move gradually to quantity, we'll have a
| better shot in the long run of preserving both.
|
| The good news is that we are discussing opening it up, so there
| is some chance we will do so soon. We're also contemplating
| allowing dialogues with >2 participants.
|
| To recap: For now, Pairagraph is gated, but we're wary of elitism
| and committed to including as many people (and perspectives) as
| possible. This is also why we have a 'Suggest' page on the
| website for readers who are interested in recommending future
| authors/topics.
|
| If you've read this far, here are a few of our favorite
| exchanges:
|
| https://www.pairagraph.com/dialogue/354c72095d2f42dab92bf427...
|
| https://www.pairagraph.com/dialogue/77d7e5451ea3467eaed19686...
|
| https://www.pairagraph.com/dialogue/5e569e6fbc944e998c795028...
|
| Along with adding more content, we're focused on three things:
|
| (1) Improving retention and expanding reach
|
| (2) Polishing the site's design/UI. Neither Carter (my co-
| founder) nor I are expert designers, we've done almost all of it
| ourselves, recognize that it needs help, and are working every
| day to add polish and professionalism
|
| (3) Eventually turning enough of a profit to make Pairagraph
| sustainable
|
| That's our grand vision, but ultimately we're just two friends
| from college working on a project that we think matters. What do
| you think?
| stunt wrote:
| Great that you are exploring new concepts.
|
| I think you could highlight categories better on the homepage.
|
| Don't add user votes to the dialogues. We know what happens to
| politics category after you do that.
|
| But, add some user interactions like following a dialogue to
| receive updates about it. And also following a contributor to
| receive update about his/her dialogues.
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| Yes, that would be great! One of our most important short-run
| goals is to figure out how to increase user engagement.
| Allowing users to follow dialogues/contributors is definitely
| one way to do that.
|
| Comment sections are another idea we've had; however, we've
| noticed that most comment sections tend to degrade quickly.
| Substack is doing better with a pay-to-comment model, but
| still, I think we're going to stay away for the time being.
| munk-a wrote:
| On the topic of the design I don't like the layout flow to the
| conversations with each blurb being a page that is scrolled
| through vertically and flipped through horizontally. I think
| it'd be more natural to have the blurbs in series vertically
| along with rearranging the quick skip bit at the top to be
| vertically oriented to match the consumption orientation.
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| Some people love the current layout; others hate it. I'll
| confess that at this point we're leaning towards making
| everything vertical, but there's something I love about the
| horizontal flow. Really appreciate your feedback.
| munk-a wrote:
| I would mention that the horizontal flow is at least
| consistently signaled to the user - having the flow of
| statements go across as
|
| (1) (2) (3) (4)
|
| and being anchor jumps to the relevant content is in line
| with the current horizontal flow. Part of my feeling toward
| this might also be from these two other factors:
|
| 1. A lot of text consumption is done on mobile platforms
| and, while I didn't check your site on mobile I am leaning
| more toward vertical infinite scrolling on desktop due to
| how many mobile things go that way today.
|
| 2. I tend to associate sites that page content and require
| horizontal movement with cheap advertisement exploitation -
| most times when something is delivering a big block-o-text
| as several pages it's either purpose built for or leverage
| to make sure they can cram as many ads as possible in the
| content.
|
| So I guess my lean toward verticality is also a general
| usage expectation coupled with abuse of the horizontal
| flow.
| munk-a wrote:
| Given the informed bent to discussions on Pairagraph I feel
| like you're much closer in competition to video essays and far
| less close to something like a combative spar on a news show.
| I'm not certain I'd get more out of reading these two sided
| arguments than I would listening to a one sided (but relatively
| balanced) presentation. I haven't hung out much in the
| twitterverse so I might just be missing the space you're trying
| to occupy but while these are thoughtful and literate they
| remain relatively brief on the subject so they'll loose out
| against the more in depth researched presentations along with
| (I think) losing out against more back-and-forth style forums
| like this one where many ideas can be surfaced in a rapid
| fashion.
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| I think you're right that Pairagraph in its present form
| probably won't be 'the last word' on a given subject. That
| may be a point in favor of expanding the format and allowing
| >2 people per dialogue.
| munk-a wrote:
| I'd urge some caution here though - going to more than two
| people will require some careful planning to allow for
| statements and rebuttals in a format that doesn't
| eventually die out to just two speakers or which drags on
| longer than your intended reading time.
|
| I might point out fivethirtyeight's live blog as an example
| of how this can go wrong[1] - there is an unpredictability
| to discussion here which is partially covered by the fact
| that they are responding to live updates but suffers from
| the fact that discussion threads will suddenly die off.
|
| 1. One random example: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-
| blog/biden-inauguration/
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| Yep, that's exactly why we haven't pursued something like
| this in the past... we're still sorting through the
| logistics!
|
| Thanks for the link for an example of how _not_ to do it!
| aj_nikhil wrote:
| I saw this on reddit and instantly loved it. Well done and good
| luck.
| iagovar wrote:
| It's a nice idea, hope you translate it to spanish, cheers!
| jjj123 wrote:
| Hey Jonathan,
|
| My biggest issue with this site is that it presents these
| arguments as two-sided. Depending on which two sides you pick,
| this usually limits the window of possibility.
|
| The most galling example I found was in the "Medicare for all
| just isn't going to happen" discussion. Both sides agree that
| true M4A is a ridiculous fantasy that needn't be pursued. This
| felt no different from typical mainstream media framing of M4A,
| manufactured consent and all.
|
| I guess my point is if your goal is to reiterate WaPo/NYT
| talking points in a more conversational medium, you've done it.
| But if you want to actually move the conversation forward
| you'll need to change the format, or at the very least bring in
| some new voices.
|
| Part of the issue could be the reliance on traditional symbols
| of prestige to determine who's an expert. I would think about
| how you could broaden this a bit, maybe pull in specific people
| for certain discussions they have relevant experience in?
|
| For example: a pro vs anti union debate with a corporate
| executive on one side and an organizer on the other would be
| informative and entertaining, and is uniquely suited to your
| medium.
|
| Edited to fix a typo
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| Couldn't agree more.
|
| We're proud of what we've built with Pairagraph v1, but the
| conversations are definitely limited by two things: (1) who
| is involved, and (2) the format: 2 authors, 4 installments,
| each 500 words, A-B-A-B.
|
| I floated this idea in response to a different comment, but
| what if we allowed readers to vote on _who_ they 'd like to
| hear from in the future? Or what if we tweaked the format to
| allow more than 2 authors to participate in a conversation?
| jjj123 wrote:
| I think both of those are interesting suggestions worth
| trying!
|
| About the audience voting thing, personally I think a
| curated list of speakers is okay, and isn't necessarily
| going to be any more biased than audience voting. I would
| just prefer that list is curated in a way that is 1)
| transparent in it's biases and 2) represents my side a
| little better (selfish preference).
|
| I know I already mentioned this, but be sure to widen your
| criteria for what makes someone an expert. I haven't done
| an exhaustive search, but I don't see many artists,
| teachers, union members, organizers, members of the working
| class, local politicians, etc. in your list, even though
| they often have more direct expertise related to these
| topics than an opinion columnist does.
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| We'll be sure to make this a top priority. We mean it
| when we say we're committed to including as many people
| (and perspectives) as possible, but there is always room
| for improvement so thank you for bringing this to our
| attention. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have
| suggestions for artists, teachers, union members,
| organizers, members of the working class, local
| politicians, etc. that you'd like to see on Pairagraph.
| We would be thrilled to get them involved!
| treis wrote:
| > a pro vs anti union debate with a corporate executive on
| one side and an organizer on the other would be informative
| and entertaining, and is uniquely suited to your medium.
|
| IMHO, those are the last people that I want to read. Both
| sides would present the same talking points we see every
| where. There'd be a lack of meaningful engagement as these
| people hold little nuance in their positions. Or, at least,
| the positions they're willing to present in public. It's just
| each side hitting the notes to fire up their base.
|
| [EDIT]
|
| This article about Israel/Palestine is an even better
| example:
|
| https://www.pairagraph.com/dialogue/8c47026d6af148588f3ad8f4.
| ..
|
| There's little to be gianed by reading that unless you want
| to know the two extremes to the point of view.
|
| [/EDIT]
|
| As an example, take this one about breaking up big tech:
|
| https://www.pairagraph.com/dialogue/ff5d6b5332124e59b081c5a5.
| ..
|
| One side wrote "Break 'Em Up: Recovering Our Freedom from Big
| Ag, Big Tech, and Big Money (2020)". The other side is wrote
| "Antitrust Law, which is the most-cited antitrust authority
| in the country". Predictably, the first is pretty bombastic
| and mostly preaching to their choir. The second is more
| nuanced and less definitive.
| jjj123 wrote:
| I think you're right that you'd hear a lot of trite
| arguments you'd heard before in that pairing. I do think it
| would be worthwhile for one reason: it illustrates that
| politics are about deciding who gets what, not about some
| objective "correct" solution.
|
| You'd have the boss on one side, who would lose money and
| productivity with a union, and an organizer on the other,
| who stands to gain benefits and stability. That is an
| interesting pairing _because_ it is directly about what
| each side wants.
|
| It's exactly what you don't get in traditional media, where
| it's mostly disingenuous hemming and hawing by opinion
| columnists. I'm showing my biases here, but I think the
| reason you don't hear politics talked about in "who gets
| what" terms is because those in power benefit from
| obscuring material realities.
| bavent wrote:
| I actually found this a while back and loved it. I get to see
| perspectives I wouldn't normally seek out, and to see their
| arguments for a position I wouldn't ever see in my filter
| bubble, so thanks!
| treis wrote:
| It's a cool format, but I find most of the actual debate
| lackluster. There's only one that I've read where they
| specifically addressed each others arguments. Half the time
| one or both sides just puts up their talking points without
| real engagement. The other half the pretty much agree and
| make essentially the same argument in different ways.
| sterlind wrote:
| this is a tough problem to solve. it'd be nice to see each
| talking point separated like a line item, or have arguments
| visually hang from other supporting arguments, each of
| which could be challenged, rebutted, or marked "agree to
| disagree."
|
| but without heavy moderation, it'd result in something like
| a Presidential debate - candidates only paying lip service
| to the prompt while going off-topic to bash their
| opponents.
| rrosen326 wrote:
| I love the idea. Keep it up.
|
| Here is a nitpick - I tried to find a way to send it to you
| privately, since it is trivial, but I couldn't find a link or
| your email anywhere. 1) Remove your photos - this feels like a
| serious site and your photos are so young that to me, and
| perhaps others, it detracts from the seriousness. And adds
| nothing. 2) Have a feedback link!
|
| But more importantly - great idea.
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| A handful of people have used our Suggest page for feedback,
| but that's not ideal. We'll set something up soon. Thanks for
| bringing that to our attention.
|
| Also, my email is jonathan@pairagraph.com. You're right... we
| should probably add contact info to the site.
| simplecto wrote:
| This reminds me of the debate format they had in one of the
| British publications. Was it FT or Economist?
|
| Either way, great idea. best of luck!
| jonathanrstern wrote:
| Thanks! I think _The Economist_ used to have a point
| /counterpoint series. Perhaps FT too.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-03 23:01 UTC)