I'm a card-carrying libertarian, and I have egalitarian sympathies too.
I think the classic libertarian analysis here is: some people's articles really are more and less valuable to readers. But there is an information discovery cost to winnowing them. So readers are willing to pay editors/moderators to perform the winnowing function.
The classic egalitarian analysis is: lots of people, even everyone, has something interesting to say. Therefore, readers will enjoy a medium that offers access to all.
The Internet vastly reduces the transaction costs of publishing and distributing information. As the old Berkeley radicals said: if you don't like the news, make your own news! Which is what Cramer and Peretz have done!
But even when the distribution cost drops to epsilon, readers still want to spend their limited attention reading higher-quality material. There will still be moderators on the net -- because readers want it that way.
I find your question "why is moderation good" provocative and I feel like I've waved my hands here, but it's the best I can do tonight.
There are lots of high-quality unmoderated threads on SI and even a few on Yahoo Finance. I think they are like other voluntary co-operatives; they can work as long as the people involved have a sense of public spirit and they don't attract rock creatures.
Actually that's part of what pushed my buttons about the post that started this thread. The original poster could have written a thoughtful and critical article: everybody in this field makes mistakes, but some people are humble about their mistakes whereas other people could use a Praetorian Guard (beware, Trader, thou art mortal). And: a good trader does not get emotionally attached to their stock, they can dislike it in January and like it in February. And: analysts, even good ones, are often wrong.
That guy could have said any number of true, relevant, non-slanderous things, and brought some real life to this thread. |
