OmarShehata

I think this is the natural process, but how you implement it doesn't matter. A lot of GitHub repos use "unlabelled issue" === "a discussion thread". The benefit is that instead of having to search two separate systems, you can just search one (if you can have an aggregate search over both then it really doesn't matter), these two implementations are isomorphic

this isn't a "it depends on what computation happens in this specific case" question, this is a "how does human cognition work".

Every website you visit has the payload delivered over the network before any JS is parsed. It has to, there's no other way. Same with intuition followed by rational thought

The first thing that happened in your mind when you read that sentence is (1) a bad feeling. That then triggered (2) a rational, conscious thought that interpreted that bad feeling: "this feels bad because it's not true, here are the reasons why it is not true.

There is ALWAYS an "emotional/intuitive" response that precedes the rational, conscious thought. There's a ton of research on this (see system 1 vs system 2 thinking etc).

There is no way to stop the emotional "thought" from happening before the "rational thought". What you can do is build a loop that self reflects to understand why that emotion was triggered (sometimes, instead of "this feels bad because it's wrong", it's "this feels bad because it points to an inconvenient truth" or "I am hungry and everything I am reading feels bad")

> The last thing we need is a formal framework of how to have organic discussions.

this is no different from best practices for programming though. People take a rule that generally works well, but a manager who doesn't understand it tries to enforce it blindly ("more unit tests!!") and it stops working

computer engineering & social engineering share a lot of the same failure modes (which is good news, if you are very good at debugging computers, but find people & politics confusing, you can unlock the latter once you see in what ways your insight in one domain can transfer to the other)

I don't think that's necessarily true, I think it's about curation, not volume. The largest open source projects in the world have enormous inbound volume but extremely high quality discussion because of curation (I'm thinking about maintenance of Wikipedia, Open Street Map, and Godot).

This is also true on twitter & blue sky. Looking at the general feed is a completely different world from looking at specific networks.

important notes from the essay, this not unique to twitter:

> And if you think this only happens on one social network, you’re already caught in the wrong attention loop.

> The most effective influence doesn’t announce itself. It doesn’t censor loudly, or boost aggressively. It shapes perception quietly — one algorithmic nudge at a time.