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?
