I was about to say "Disallow forwarding". The problem with most networks (and in the old days, even emails), was that the bulk of the material I'd get from people I personally know were not original content, but memes, humor, or political content being forwarded.
But this may serve an equivalent purpose:
> And finally, there should be a reasonable cap on the number of times a user can post per day. Roughly 5 times per day feels like the upper threshold of what you can post while being intentional about what it is you're posting.
Amusingly, just yesterday I said in a comment:
"Imagine you have a quota of only 1 HN comment per day. You probably will be a lot more careful on what you reply to."
> Imagine you have a quota of only 1 HN comment per day. You probably will be a lot more careful on what you reply to.
1 HN comment a day is interesting as it would also introduce a lag into the speed of development of threads as you wouldn't know ahead of time what threads you would want to post in until they've all been created.
Something I think about personally is what would be the result of requiring people to invest a personally meaningful amount of time and/or money into posting. "I have to pay to speak?!" people ask. Well, yes.
Of course, this immediately seems to tie someone's ability to post to personal finances which isn't the intention. But the key idea is that it has to be something personally costly enough that it implies an honest and intentional signal, which always seems to end up as either time or money.
Some forums implement time-gated posting which is interesting. If you have to wait a minute to be allowed to post, can you still be bothered? But would I have paid to write this specific comment? I'm not sure, I guess that depends on the market rate for posts at the time. I have no doubt there are tens of ways this system breaks down that I haven't thought through.
I think time based is the way to go, with an exponential curve, such that one can only post 5 comments reasonably per day.
The first comment in a given day has no wait. The second requires waiting 10 minutes. The 3rd requires an hour. The 4th requires 3 hours, and the 5th another 12 hours or so.
Obviously: No edits (or let the edit count as the comment).
Lots of variables to play with. The nice thing about time is that it is egalitarian. Richer people don't get more access.
> If you have to wait a minute to be allowed to post, can you still be bothered?
At work, I often log out of HN. The need to log back in often does act as a deterrent. I also occasionally use LeechBlock, with a 60s delay. That too acts as a deterrent.
> I also occasionally use LeechBlock, with a 60s delay.
Interesting. I've tried blocking things via hosts file to add that kind of friction, but it's too easy and often I'm waiting on something that takes longer than the time it takes me to 'fix' the hosts file.
> At work, I often log out of HN.
This works for me for posting but doesn't help so much with the FOMO of new threads. If I had to be logged in to view I imagine I'd read far fewer threads.
>Roughly 5 times per day feels like the upper threshold of what you can post while being intentional about what it is you're posting
Not sure about social media, but in the days of forums I posted way more thoughtful and helpful posts on the forum I attended.
(I'll be honest, I didn't read the post yet. I'm doing this now)