The web breaks down the barriers put up by location and time to allow discussion and debate anywhere at any time.
Disqus is an interesting system because it also removes the barriers put up by different websites and allows commenting on a central hub. It provides users with a very flexible platform on which they can follow multiple threads of discussion in the same place without having multiple sign ins on different sites.
Disqus makes it easier for people to comment and track their contributions on a single profile which they can display as a comment blog. After all, there is no difference between a great comment and a great published article.”
A shared space like this is great because it makes the process of engagement easier and facilitates debate though commenting, which adds value to the content being debated and to the comments themselves.
For larger brands who want debate to happen on their “digital property” thus generating registrations to their system from which they can collect data a system like this could be seen as disruptive, however if Disqus allows communication to happen more productively across different sites and are able to facilitate the sharing of user data then then content providers may find this sort of solution very attractive.
Below I have tried to represent this idea through the example of UK national newspaper websites. The Collective Community which is joined by a system like Disqus can push and pull users between different debates and points of view allowing users to move between different debates easily and interact with them using the same identity. The Separate Communities on the right are more isolated and contained. They don’t allow a freedom of expression amongst them without using different identities.
Traditional content publishers (which newspapers are) may find this a difficult concept to buy into initially. The system is not exclusive, so users could be actively recruited by another content provider, who might be a direct competitor. Users might then choose to spend more time with that other content provider if their experience of the content and debate are better than that which they had before.
Content providers such as newspapers and magazines have very competitive rivalries for sales in hard-copy that now spills over into the digital world in a battle for users, this influences the relationship these brands have with their readers. Whether or not a system like this would be used by a competitor should be put to one side and the user should always be considered first.
Content providers own the content being presented, when it then takes a life on of it’s own through the comments made on it that is not their property, it belongs collectively to those who have continued the conversation.
Content creators don’t own the conversation, users do.
Having a collective community which is able to move betwen different newspaper websites means those websites can concentrate on what they are traditionally good at. Not managing a community but producing interesting, exciting content that users will love.
