They were pretty clear about it - they screwed up by underestimating the scale of the problems. It's better to admit your mistake quickly and try to fix things.
Instead of building a Web of Trust, a better solution might be to find efficient ways of clustering people.
Look how civil and insightful this discussion is. Why? Because people have different "quality", even if it's not politically correct to talk about it, we all know it intuitively.
Imagine a forum, where all the HN-level people are gradually clustered together, all the rednecks with conspiracy theories, all the leftists dreaming of communism, all form their own independent echo-chambers.
Yes, echo-chambers are bad, but let's face it, you won't be able to change most people's opinions anyway. Don't agree with me? Go on reddit, try saying something "controversial", like "men can't get pregnant", see how many people you would be able to convince :)
Hm, I didn't know about this bot. It's a new one, created in March this year. I created my bot 3 years ago, there was nothing like it then.
Looks similar, with additional functionality.
Sad, actually, my bot got zero traction and so somebody had to write their own bot, which is now more popular... So much for motivation to create new things... Oh, well.
That's why you need to build something that is at least an order of magnitude better, so people can't ignore you.
Otherwise, yes, this was my experience too: in our noisy world dominated by huge corporations, indie hackers stand little chance to get their message out and pick some interest.
That's a bit different than saying that Fascism "has no grounding in economic theory nor in fostering discussions on how to allocate scarce resources".
Both Marxism and Fascism *can* provide valid discussions about economics and how to "allocate scarce resources".
So your argument that we can dismiss Fascism because it has no relation to economy is simply wrong.
My main idea is that freelance sites are sort of broken: you pick a worker, he works on things for a while and then you see if he screwed up or not.
You can't really trust his profile. Reviews are also often inconclusive.
It would be better if you could submit a small milestone, let multiple people work on it and pick the best result. Then continue working with that developer.
And then this can be expanded into a platform where not only a single person can be an employer, but people can combine their funds to crowdsource various tasks. Good example would be open-source projects.
This should be a platform. The main problem is how to convince users to come and vote on projects. If you figure that out - you'll be a millionaire :)
One way might be through cryptocurrencies - users crowd-source the idea with money, then one or more developers submit MVP's, then users vote on those and the winner gets all the collected money, while users get the product they want. Sort of like improved Kickstarter.
SQLite might be a good choice for a project like this.
So all your sources for all categories are automated? My main worry was if you have to hunt for content manually - that might not be sustainable.
This would also be great for Telegram. You could easily forward daily content into a channel. Or even create a bot that allows people to subscribe only to some categories.
:)