smnkgv

Thank you for your comment! That is a very valid observation - network effect is hard to beat. Moreover, because of how our voting system works, the project becomes even more dependent on community size than, say, reddit, that has a top-down moderation structure. And it is also dependent on volunteers voting on the content and on moderation proposals. That is more work than, say, clicking upvotes sometimes or just consuming content. But hey, if in exchange you get better bot resistance, better content, and full transparency, would the additional effort not be worth it?

And, of course, as the hero section of the landing page says, this is still an experiment. Indeed, it does not matter whether it works mathematically if it does not work psychologically - this is what we want to test!

Good to see a fellow anti-engager! If you send me an invite, I will definitely give it a try. As for the "readers connecting by using semantic similarity of books" - That is a great idea. I wonder, how have you addressed the "formation of echo chambers" problem? Or is it not the goal of this particular project (now/ever)?

a few years ago, when I was trying to "return back" to social media, I realised there was kind of nowhere to go. All social feeds were either engagement-driven and wanted too much of my attention at the cost of content quality, or chronological, where the burden of sorting was on me, or editorial, where there were fixed elites doing all the sorting/filtering.

This is our attempt at making a feed that answers a more human-centric question. Instead of collecting likes, upvotes, views, etc. to answer the question of "What is getting the most traction today", or "what is most popular today" - it does none of that and just lets users decide what gets published (and, consequently, seen by everyone) through randomised majority voting. Basically, it tries to answer the question: "What does each community as a whole decide is worth attention today?"

Answering this question was not easy. After trial and error, we can reliably say that it does work mathematically, on simulation, and "on the paper". But it still remains to be seen whether there are other failure modes we did not think of, such as psychological, game theory-based, etc. After all, as far as we're aware, such a design hasn't been tried before, and there may be solid reasons for why - please help us see them!

on this experimental note - I hope you'll like it, and I am here to answer any questions you may have! Cheers!