Like, the site owners/employees/admins/mods are the only ones who choose what to post(and hopefully not extremely bias and a good spread of topics), but the users can still upvote/downvote the post as well as comment and all that?
I like the aggregation mark down style of these sites, but I am not sure about the curation being purely user based. I am curious if the users having a large majority control of the curation hurts the quality, and I’d like to see comparisons if they exist.
You brought in trust, I didn’t.
I just don’t think purely population based curation is coming up with the best content selection. I wanted to see alternatives.
Ergo, you don’t trust that users are able to curate as well as an individual, despite the fact that the individual is just one of many users.
Just because you didn’t use the word “trust” doesn’t mean you’re not describing not trusting that you’ll get the best curated content from a large group of users as opposed to a small group. It’s literally exactly what you’re describing, that you don’t trust you’ll get the best results from a group.
I wanted to see alternatives to compare.
I guess you can consider branching out a distrust of what is known.
Would that mean you would trust mob mentality over the mentality of an individual as a rule then?
Tbh though, I’m not sure why you are being confrontational, I just was asking about alternatives for curiosity reasons. It’s nothing I’m really invested in, just wanted to explore.