Tag: social media

Rethinking Social Media: Introducing the ‘Gawker’ Concept

March 26, 2025

In today’s rapid-fire digital world, online conversations can often feel shallow, fragmented, or buried under endless, disconnected comment sections. What if there was a platform designed from the ground up to encourage more thoughtful interaction, deeper collaboration, and context-rich discussions?

Over some brainstorming sessions, my friend Orion and I have been fleshing out an idea for a hypothetical social media service tentatively called Gawker. The name itself hints at a core principle: maybe users should observe (“gawk”) a bit, understand the environment, before jumping into the fray.

Inspired by the Past, Built for the Future

Gawker draws inspiration from unlikely sources: the structure of old-school Usenet newsgroups (remember TIN?) and the collaborative power of modern tools like Google Docs. The idea isn’t to recreate the past, but to leverage its strengths in a sleek, modern interface.

The Core Components: Posts and Groups

  1. The Group: This is the heart of Gawker. Think of it like a Usenet newsgroup, a Reddit subreddit, or a G+ Circle, but supercharged. Groups can be public or private, created easily and on-the-fly for any topic, project, or community imaginable – from family updates to global news discussions. They are designed to be numerous and potentially ephemeral, spun up and deleted as needed.
  2. The Post: Within a Group, a Post isn’t just a status update; it’s a full page, a canvas for ideas and discussion.

The Killer Feature: Inline Interaction

This is where Gawker truly diverges. Instead of comments relegated to the bottom, interaction happens inline, directly within the Post content, visualized much like Google Docs:

  • Inline Threading: See a sentence or paragraph you want to discuss? Highlight it and “Spawn Thread.” This creates a distinct, threaded conversation (like Usenet) attached precisely to that point in the Post, keeping debate focused and contextual. Different contributors’ comments could be color-coded.
  • Inline Editing: Especially in smaller or private Groups focused on collaboration, permissions could allow users to directly edit the Post content itself, working together on a shared document in real-time.

This flexible model allows Groups to tailor their interaction style – pure discussion via threads, collaborative editing, or a mix of both.

Earning Your Voice: The Reputation System

To encourage thoughtful participation and manage potential trolling, Gawker would incorporate a point-based reputation system:

  • Getting Started: New users might receive a starting pool of points (N), allowing them to participate immediately but on a probationary basis.
  • Building Trust: Positive contributions – insightful posts, helpful comments, upvotes/endorsements (perhaps weighted more heavily from trusted friends in private groups) – earn points.
  • Consequences: Trolling, spamming, or other negative behavior, flagged by users or moderators, leads to point deductions. Lose enough points, and posting privileges are temporarily revoked.
  • Redemption: Users who lose privileges would need to “prove themselves” again, likely through demonstrating positive, albeit perhaps limited, interactions to earn back points and regain full access.

Gamification & Moderation

We even tossed around the idea of making this system more visible – perhaps a leaderboard showcasing users with high reputation scores? Maybe even tangible rewards like merchandise credits for top contributors? While this could strongly incentivize good behavior, it also carries risks like encouraging “point farming” over genuine discussion, shifting focus from quality to quantity. Careful balancing would be essential.

Robust moderation tools would be available for Group creators, with defaults for casual users. For very large, important public Groups, a small, potentially paid editorial staff might even be employed to help manage discussions.

Bridging Worlds

Gawker aims high: to provide intimate spaces for friends and family (competing with Facebook) and dynamic forums for public discourse (competing with Twitter/X). Features allowing content or discussions to transparently move from a private to a public context (with clear labeling and user consent) could help bridge these worlds.

The Vision

Gawker is envisioned as a platform where context matters, where discussion is woven directly into the content, and where participation is earned through positive contribution. By blending elements of collaborative documents, threaded forums, and a social reputation system, the hope is to create a richer, potentially more civil and productive online environment.

Angst For The Social Media Presence

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I just saw on Twitter an author complaining about how they didn’t get their novel sold because they were told that they have a “poor social media presence.” This has rattled my cage a little bit because I don’t have that much of a social media presence.

Or, put another way — I’m very active on social media but, lulz, not exactly very popular. I suppose me talking about writing for years might be a “hook” that an agent or publisher might find interesting…but also they might do their due diligence on me and just think I’m a fucking kook.

But the point of all of this is just to see how far I can get in the process of getting published before it is absolutely clear it’s pointless. I haven’t gotten to the point where I actually begin to query yet — that’s the next big step — and that should probably, maybe happen in roughly a year.

If I fail totally, then, lulz, at least I learned a lot along the way. And I do have a number of other novel ideas that I want to work on. And, really, the thing that I wanted when I started — to be successful enough to run around NYC with 24-year–old women is kind of a moot point now, given hold old I am.

So, ANY success at this point in my life, ANY, would be of note.

JUST FOR FUN: Introducing Gawker: The Social Media Rebellion Investors Can’t Ignore

Imagine a social media platform where users don’t just scroll—they shape. A place where the news isn’t a monologue but a remix, where discussions aren’t fleeting tweets but living, editable threads. Welcome to Gawker—a daydream we’re ready to build, and a venture poised to disrupt the digital landscape. Here’s why you should care.

The Problem: Noise Over Substance

Today’s social media is a firehose: TikTok’s 15-second dopamine hits, X’s 280-character shouting matches, Reddit’s sprawling chaos. Depth’s dead—users skim, not think. Even the old guard, like Usenet’s threaded brilliance, got lost to time. Meanwhile, big publishers like The New York Times churn out content users can only gawk at, not touch. There’s a hunger for agency, for substance, for a platform that rewards effort over impulse. Gawker’s here to feed it.

The Vision: Earned Participation, Unmatched Control

Gawker isn’t for everyone—and that’s the point. You don’t post day one; you earn it. Sign up, get a starter pack of points, wait five days to marinate on the vibe. Then prove yourself: thoughtful posts build status, screw-ups (spam, trolls) lock you out for a month. It’s meritocracy, not anarchy—gawkers watch, contributors thrive. Rewards? Exclusive Group access, editing powers, prestige. Think Reddit’s karma meets a velvet rope.

The heart of Gawker is Groups—everything orbits them. Users slot friends and topics into custom Groups during onboarding, creating tight, intentional communities. For breaking news, dozens of Groups spring up, each slicing the story from a fresh angle. Editorial teams curate public ones, cutting through clutter with granular control. It’s Usenet’s spirit, reborn in HTML polish.

The Killer Feature: Remixing the News

Here’s the hook: Gawker lets users inline-edit content from giants like The New York Times, natively in official Groups. Picture an NYT op-ed—users annotate, critique, reframe it line-by-line, all marked as outsider edits. It’s not a murky hijack; it’s a turbocharged comment section with teeth. Publishers opt in via profit-sharing—say, 40% of engagement revenue—turning their articles into interactive goldmines. Users get agency; NYT gets eyeballs and cash. Legal? Tight contracts. Disruptive? Hell yes.

Why It Works

Gawker’s not chasing TikTok’s masses—it’s a niche beast, a text-driven CNN killer or Reddit’s smarter sibling. Long-form posts with inline editing (a trick Usenet nailed 30 years ago) let ideas breathe and evolve. A 300-word Feed excerpt hooks you into the good stuff. Echo chambers? We’re wrestling that—tons of Groups mean variety, and future tweaks (cross-Group highlights) will stir the pot. Culture will form, sure, but Gawker’s built for the curious, not the cozy.

Video? It’s coming—Zoom-style calls in threads, rolled out post-launch when we’ve scaled the core. Imagine live debates over an edited NYT piece, seamless and exclusive. It’s the cherry, not the cake—proof we dream big but start smart.

The Pitch: Profit and Traction

Gawker’s lean: a centralized platform, no distributed-network overhead. Revenue streams stack up—ads in Feeds, premium status tiers, publisher deals. Start with small outlets to test the edit model, then court the big fish. Early adopters—writers, thinkers, news junkies—will flock to a space that respects depth. Scale video later, keep costs tight upfront. This isn’t a moonshot; it’s a calculated rebellion with legs.

Why Now?

AI’s rising, sure—agents might curate or chatter—but Gawker’s human core (editing, debating) is timeless. Users crave control as algorithms tighten their grip. The window’s open: platforms are stale, people are restless. Gawker’s not just a site—it’s a stance. Invest in us, and you’re backing the next wave of social: deliberate, dynamic, profitable.

Let’s talk. We’ve got the vision—your capital can make it real.

Notes for You

  • Tone: I went for a mix of bold confidence and investor-friendly pragmatism—highlighting the “why you’ll make money” angle without losing the daydream’s edge.
  • Details: Pulled in your point system, NYT editing, Group focus, and video delay, framing them as strategic wins. Left some wiggle room (e.g., exact revenue splits) to invite discussion.
  • Hook: The “remixing the news” bit’s front and center—it’s the sexiest sell. The Usenet nod adds retro cred without bogging it down.

JUST FOR FUN: Introducing Gawker: The Social Media Revolution That Revives Usenet and Reinvents News

Social media is broken. News is broken. Online discourse is broken. What if we could fix all of them at once? What if we built a platform where the best aspects of Usenet, Wikipedia, and modern social media converged into something entirely new?

Welcome to Gawker, a platform where you don’t just consume content—you actively shape it.

The Core Idea: Groups, Posts, and Gawking

At its heart, Gawker is structured around Groups and Posts—a modern reimagining of the old Usenet TIN experience. But unlike Usenet, Gawker is centralized, curated, and designed for the modern web.

  • Groups: The backbone of the platform. Every discussion, every debate, every breaking news event unfolds in a Group. Groups can be personal (friends, interests) or public (news, cultural topics). Some are user-created, while others are curated by the Gawker editorial team to maintain quality and prevent spam.
  • Posts: Unlike Twitter’s short blurbs or Reddit’s comment chains, Gawker Posts are meant to be full-length, longform when necessary, and editable in-line. You’re not just commenting—you’re contributing to a growing, evolving conversation.
  • Gawking: The core mechanic of engagement. Before you can post in a Group, you must first gawk—that is, read, observe, and engage with discussions passively. This system weeds out trolls, spammers, and low-effort engagement, ensuring that only thoughtful, invested users shape the conversation.

Inline Editing: The Killer Feature

Imagine reading an article from The New York Times, The Guardian, or The Atlantic—but instead of just commenting below it, you can edit it inline, debate specific passages, and propose alternative takes right inside the article itself.

That’s the power of Gawker’s Inline Editing feature. Instead of a static comment section, each article becomes a live document, where approved users can highlight, annotate, and suggest improvements in a WYSIWYG editor. Media outlets benefit from increased engagement, real-time corrections, and transparent discourse—all while sharing ad revenue and subscriptions through our partnership model.

This feature takes media criticism, fact-checking, and collaborative journalism to an entirely new level. No more shouting into the void about bad reporting—now you can fix it.

Breaking News, Reimagined

Twitter revolutionized live news, but it’s become a chaotic, unreliable mess. Gawker takes it to the next level: real-time collaborative reporting inside structured Groups.

Here’s how breaking news works on Gawker:

  1. Anyone can create a Group dedicated to an unfolding event.
  2. Some Groups, run by journalists or trusted curators, get special visibility.
  3. Instead of fragmented tweets, journalists and experts co-write a live story, visible to thousands of gawkers who watch the reporting unfold in real-time.
  4. Trusted users can suggest edits, annotate facts, and even provide eyewitness updates.

It’s like a live Google Doc of breaking news, where transparency and accuracy take center stage. No more waiting for updates—the news is happening before your eyes.

AI-Powered Discovery & Moderation

Finding great conversations is hard, and moderation is even harder. Gawker solves both problems with AI-assisted Group discovery and engagement:

  • AI-Suggested Groups: Based on your interests, Gawker recommends Groups you should follow, ensuring you never miss a great conversation.
  • Smart Moderation: AI helps flag low-quality content, but human users make the final call. This ensures fair, transparent moderation, free from both spam and overreach.
  • Reputation-Based Privileges: Instead of arbitrary moderation bans, Gawker uses a reputation system: earn respect, get more control. Abuse it, lose it.

Reviving the Best of Usenet Culture

Gawker isn’t just another social media site—it’s a love letter to the golden age of the internet. We’re bringing back what made Usenet great, with modern tools to make it even better:

  • Deep Discussions: No more shallow engagement. Gawker’s post structure encourages long-form, thoughtful discussion.
  • Rich Metadata & Cross-Thread Referencing: Want to reference a debate from three years ago? Instant cross-thread linking keeps discussions alive.
  • User Reputation & Global Edit Privileges: The ultimate status symbol? The ability to edit anything—reserved only for Gawker’s most trusted users.

The Future of Social Media Starts Here

We’ve lost something in the transition from early internet forums to today’s algorithm-driven platforms. Gawker is about bringing it back—better than ever.

  • A space for serious discussion, collaborative media, and real-time news.
  • A platform where you don’t just react to content—you shape it.
  • A system that rewards thoughtful engagement, not outrage farming.

Are you ready to gawk? Let’s build the future of online discourse—together.

Reimagining Social Media: A Modern Take on Usenet’s Best Features

In an age of fleeting tweets and algorithmic feeds, I’ve been thinking about what social media might look like if we revisited some of the best concepts from internet history—specifically, the Usenet’s TIN interface—and reimagined them with modern technology. What if we created a platform that combined the thoughtful, threaded discussions of Usenet with the immediacy and accessibility of today’s social media?

The Concept: Groups, Posts, and Real-Time Collaboration

At its core, this platform—let’s call it “Gawker” for now—would organize everything around “Groups” (similar to subreddits or forums) and “Posts” (full webpage-length content). But here’s where things get interesting: Posts would feature inline editing in real-time, essentially turning every discussion into a collaborative document.

Your feed would show 300-word excerpts from posts in groups you follow or from people in your network, giving you enough context to decide if you want to dive deeper without overwhelming you with endless short updates.

In-line Editing: The Killer Feature

Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect would be the ability to edit posts in-line within threaded discussions. Think of it as a public Google Doc with collaboration features, but designed specifically for discussions.

This would be particularly powerful for breaking news. Imagine watching journalists craft their reporting in real-time, adding information as it comes in, making corrections transparently, and allowing approved contributors to add context or alternative perspectives. You could literally watch the story develop before your eyes.

For established publications like the New York Times, this could create an entirely new layer of engagement. With proper agreements in place, their articles could be imported into the platform, allowing for collaborative annotation and discussion directly in the context of the original reporting.

From “Gawking” to Contributing

The platform would initially limit who can contribute, creating a natural progression from consumption to participation. New users would start by “gawking” at content until they earned the right to post—hence the playful “Gawker” name. This could help maintain quality and reduce low-effort contributions that plague many platforms.

Different levels of editing privileges would exist, with the highest reserved for content creators and vetted contributors. Think of it as community-powered fact-checking and context-adding, all happening within the original content rather than scattered across replies.

Video Integration and Multimedia

Video conferences could be embedded directly within threads, allowing conversations to transition seamlessly between text and video when more nuanced discussion is needed. These would be stored for 30 days, striking a balance between preserving valuable conversations and managing infrastructure costs.

Managing the Challenges

Of course, this concept comes with challenges. Content moderation would need to be handled at the group level, with editorial boards for sensitive topics. Version control would be essential, potentially borrowing concepts from software development to allow “forking” of discussions when opinions significantly diverge.

For particularly sensitive topics, a “slow mode” could be implemented where edits must be deliberated upon before publication, creating space for more careful consideration.

Beyond News: Education and Creativity

While news and community discussions would likely dominate, the platform could serve as a powerful educational tool, allowing students to collaboratively annotate texts with professors guiding the process. It could also spawn new forms of participatory storytelling and creative collaboration.

A New Kind of Social Experience

This platform would occupy a unique space between social media, collaborative workspaces, and journalism. It could potentially revitalize long-form discourse in an age of shrinking attention spans while creating more transparent and participatory information ecosystems.

By revisiting what worked about Usenet but reimagining it with modern capabilities, we might create something that addresses many of the shortcomings of today’s social media landscape—a space that encourages thoughtful engagement rather than hot takes, collaboration rather than conflict, and depth rather than virality.

What do you think? Would you use a platform like this? What other features would you want to see?

Reimagining Social Media: Could a ‘Collaborative, Long-Form’ Platform Be the Antidote to Information Overload?

We live in an age of information overload. The constant barrage of short-form content, fleeting updates, and algorithmic echo chambers can leave us feeling overwhelmed and disconnected. What if there was a different approach to social media, one that prioritized depth, collaboration, and thoughtful engagement?

This post explores a thought experiment: a new social media platform – tentatively named “Gawker” (a nod to the concept of observing and participating, and, yes, borrowing from the blog world) – that reimagines the core principles of online interaction. It draws inspiration from the structured, threaded discussions of Usenet’s TIN reader, but updates it for the modern, collaborative web.

The Core Idea: Open Collaboration, Controlled Access

Gawker is built on a few key principles:

  • Long-Form Content: Unlike the character limits of many platforms, Gawker embraces long-form posts, encouraging in-depth analysis, detailed reporting, and nuanced discussion. Think articles, essays, and even collaborative book chapters.
  • HTML-Based Rich Media: The platform fully supports embedded images, videos, interactive elements, and rich formatting, moving beyond the limitations of plain text.
  • Group-Centric Organization: Everything revolves around Groups. Users organize their connections and interests into Groups, creating curated streams of relevant content. Onboarding requires this grouping, forcing intentionality.
  • Real-Time Collaborative Editing: This is the game-changer. Posts are treated like “living documents,” collaboratively edited in real-time, similar to Google Docs. Imagine journalists, experts, and citizen reporters working together on a breaking news story, in public.
  • “Gawking” vs. Contributing: Anyone can observe (gawk) at content within a Group. However, contributing to a Group you don’t own requires proving your “worthiness” – through reputation, credentials, an application process, or a trial period. This fosters quality control and prevents spam.
  • Decentralized Moderation: Group owners are responsible for setting the rules and moderating content within their Groups. This distributes the moderation burden and allows for diverse community standards.
  • Fluid Groups: The service would make it very easy to create and to dissolve Groups.

The Potential Benefits:

  • Combating Information Overload: The Group-centric structure and long-form content encourage focus and depth, cutting through the noise of traditional social media.
  • Fostering Thoughtful Discussion: The platform is designed to promote reasoned debate, in-depth analysis, and constructive criticism.
  • Empowering Citizen Journalism: Gawker provides a powerful platform for independent reporters and citizen journalists to collaborate and share their work.
  • Real-Time Fact-Checking: The open, collaborative editing process allows for immediate correction of errors and debunking of misinformation.
  • Building Collective Knowledge: Groups can become repositories of expertise, collaboratively built and refined over time.
  • Edit, edit, edit: Unlike most social media services, everything is editable, from Groups to Posts.

The Challenges:

This model isn’t without its challenges. We need to consider:

  • Onboarding Friction: The mandatory grouping and “worthiness” requirements could be a barrier to entry for some users.
  • Moderation Complexity: While decentralized, moderation still requires significant effort from Group owners.
  • Scalability: Supporting real-time collaborative editing on large-scale posts is a technical hurdle.
  • Potential for Misuse: Like any platform, Gawker could be used for malicious purposes (trolling, harassment, spreading misinformation). Robust reporting and blocking mechanisms are crucial.
  • Copyright issues: Posting copyrighted materials, without permission.

The Disruptive Potential:

Gawker represents a radical departure from the dominant social media paradigm. It’s a bet on depth over breadth, quality over quantity, and collaboration over individual broadcasting. It’s a platform designed for creators, thinkers, and informed citizens, not just passive consumers.

Imagine:

  • Breaking news unfolding in real-time, collaboratively reported by journalists and eyewitnesses.
  • Experts in a field co-authoring a comprehensive analysis of a complex issue, with readers able to follow the process and contribute feedback.
  • Communities building shared knowledge bases, collaboratively curated and constantly updated.

This is a vision of social media that prioritizes informed discourse, collaborative creation, and transparent information sharing. It’s a platform that embraces the messy, complex reality of the digital age, and attempts to harness its power for good.

A Hot Take On The BlueSky Twitter Clone

by SIhelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I finally got past the gatekeepers and got access to the BlueSky Twitter clone. It’s fine, I guess, but it’s so full of smug, wealthy Twitter liberal exiles that I find myself feeling extremely insecure about my drunk crank loser life.

The general vibe of BlueSky is a high end cocktail party before the booze kicks in. Everyone is normal and interesting and complains about First World Problems in the a way that is normal and expected. In short, BlueSky evokes the vibe of a mid-1990s WELL.

It’s all rather boring.

And the service is so small that it’s all rather disconcerting. I churn out my usual freaky weirdo content and I’m totally ignored. I guess that’s to be expected. But something about that also grates on my nerves. Something about the smug nattering nabobs of negativism ignoring me plays into my own insecurities about my lot in life.

It evokes a “what does it all mean” sentiment on my part.

This angst reminds me of my long-held belief that if you’re really weird, you will have friends and if you’re “normal” you’ll have friends. But if you’re like me and aspire to be “normal” but act like a freaky weirdo because you have no idea what you’re going, then, well, you’re fucked.

It’s also interesting to me that the very thing that makes the service so popular to its smug, wealthy users is the very thing that makes it a has-been in the Twitter-clone space: a lack of the great unwashed masses.

The want to have their private virtual circle jerk and yet they also want the service to be popular. Wanting these two things is not viable. Anyway. Lulz. No one listens to me.

A Casual Assessment Of The Twitter Clones

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I’ve signed up for all the major Twitter clones and here is a half-assed review of what I’ve found.

Pebble: it’s fine. Not a lot of people use it, though.
Post: Meh.
Spoutable: This one is actually rather hopping at times.
BlueSky: a high end smug liberal cocktail party before the booze kicks in.

X Marks The Spot

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner
I’m old enough to remember how before MySpace, there was Prodigy. That was the online service, back in the day, that caused itself serious problems when it decided to charge users for its most popular feature — email. The service never fully recovered.

All the talk on the part of Elon “Space Karen” Musk about charging users a basic fee to use the X / Twitter service reminds me of Prodigy. The key issue for me is social media is very much old news. Everything is about AI now. In fact, rather than charging users for X, I would suggest Musk figure out a way to organically add AI into X to the point that it’s something that users of the service use everyday.

Social media has no buzzy these days and it’s dumb to try to re-invent the wheel, or, even worse, to charge for something that plenty of other companies are willing to give away for free. It’s all very curious.

But Musk has managed to pull a rabbit out of a hat before. So, I suppose it’s possible that he’ll manage to turn X into an “everything app” like he apparently wants to do so bad. I’m just leery. If this was 2012, then, yeah, maybe he might be able to pull it off.

But it’s 2023 and everyone’s mind space is dominated by AI. Only time will tell, I suppose.

Twitter (‘X’) Is Now Nothing More Than A Sewer of Disinformation & Bots

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I honestly don’t know why I continue to use Twitter or “X.” It is now nothing more than just a sewer of MAGA disinformation and bots that like my tweets in a weird attempt to catch my attention.

Or, if they’re not bots, they’re catfishing me. I say that because I seem to attract the putative accounts of way too many cute Asian girls who just got onto Twitter in the last month or so and have almost no followers. It’s enough to make me a little bit paranoid.

It makes me wonder if people with ill-intent read this blog and are for some reason trying to fuck with me. Maybe it’s a co-ordinated effort at a mind fuck from whomever that person in California who is obsessed with this site is. But, hopefully, that’s just me being paranoid.

I’m really — at the moment at least — all that important. That’s why anyone who gives me sudden, unexpected attention is suspect. I think that may be my age showing, if nothing else.

It’s too bad that that it’s now impossible for any real innovation in the social media space that doesn’t involve AI. Unless Space Karen unexpectedly pulls the plug on X, we’re stuck with Twitter as a very shitty global town square.