Here's Josh Constine's opening paragraph:
Facebook may be preparing to launch a new version of its Social Commenting plugin. Judging by the version currently implemented on Facebook's own blog, it may surface high quality comments or help users identify trolls and spammers by assigning users an aggregated credibility score. Since this score travels with users wherever the plugin is integrated, it should encourage more civil, thoughtful commenting.
The Facebook people are not thinking about activists here. If someone who is from the opposite end of some ideological spectrum of some website leaves a pointed comment, the bulk of the other commentators will give the "enemy" commentator a very negative score that will carry over wherever the commentator goes, even onto otherwise friendly territory.
Imagine a capitalist on a communist website or vice versa or a Christian on an atheist website.
What this Facebook Credibility Score will do is water down everything and cause people to fear leaving their ideological camp to comment.
I find this sort of thinking typical of Facebook's founders, who have always struck me as wanting to promote an advertisers paradise where every Facebook user will be a hyper consumer of advertised products and services. Facebook is in it for the money going into the coffers of Facebook owners and executives.
The Facebook platform will plateau out in the not too distant future for those of us who are on the Internet to brave and sway opposition.
Facebook will listen to it's advertisers who will want a medium conducive to capitalist profits. This will cause the great lowest-common-denominator phenomenon seen on TV, only worse.
There is a Bambi syndrome afoot in the offices of Facebook's top management: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." The problem is that "nice" there is a cover for war crimes, etc., and that's not nice!
Do we really want Mark Zuckerberg in charge of social engineering hundreds of millions of people, many of whom are three and four times or more his senior just because he obtained the financial backing of very greedy capitalists for the poor and socialists for the rich? I don't.