It would be a big ask, and an open ended risk to their reputation. It would mean we'd effectively need a corporate identity, editorial control, detailed policies and attitudes to apply to everything that got posted.
It's one way we could go, but I'd have thought a people power platform would be more practicable. Not anarchy, but certainly an open attitude with minimal control. OK, sometimes some of the campaigns we hosted would be defective, but that wouldn't discredit the whole platform, hopefully. Our authority would be that we allowed public concern to be heard, and how can the establishment knock "the public".
It's certainly one of the things we ought to make a choice about, as ES said.
|