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.
Check out Hacker News. Their mission is to only allow thought provoking posts and to not allow enshitification or dumbing down of their platform.
Users can still post content but it is more highly moderated to maintain quality. The users tend to be techy so user submissions are higher quality than average reddit/lemmy posts.
There is a lemmy community that reposts articles from hacker news but now I just browse it on their website or using the Android app Harmonic which I recommend.
honestly, sounds like you are looking for a comment section on a news network to me. maybe im missing something.
digg?
but I am not sure about the curation being purely user based.
So you don’t trust random users, but you do trust… random admins or moderators?
Your logic here is not sound. They’re just as likely to be biased or leave out important information.
If you want it like that, I think you should follow @Uncle’s suggestion and just use news sites like Associated Press or Reuters.
Seriously, why would the curation be any better when done by an admin or mod versus average users?
Oh look at that, I’m an average Lemmy user, and I just made a news community and now I’m the moderator of it. See what I’m saying here? If you don’t trust users, well… users are where mods come from, so I don’t know what to tell you.
I think you just reinvented slashdot.
Also Fark
