Yes, and you sparked it. This whole thread traces back to your article. Bravo.
I keep imagining a web where a page or post is just the contextual footprint - a starting point for layered experiences, interactions, and meaning that branch outward. Ted Nelson, who coined the term "hyperlink," also coined "intertwingled" to describe this kind of web. It stuck with me.
Lately I've been calling it the Metaweb or Meta-Layer, but I’m also warming to the idea of a digital noosphere. Whatever the name, it’s a trust and coordination layer that lives above the web, and I think it should remain public, not captured by platforms or corporate logic.
Douglas Engelbart, one of the forgotten architects of modern computing and the web, saw all this coming. He didn’t just invent the mouse - he laid out a whole vision for augmenting collective intelligence. It’s kind of astonishing how little credit he gets for that.
A fine reflection of a much-maligned space. Personal pride compels me to point out that the three examples of commenting renaissance - WIRED, WaPo, FT - are all powered by the open source Coral platform that I led for a decade.
Another thing this moment highlights is that comments were never just about feedback. They were the web’s earliest attempt at collective learning. People pointed out errors, added sources, translated context, and learned together in public.
What broke was not the desire to learn socially, but the structure. Page-bound threads, fragile identity, and moderation models that could not scale made sustained learning impossible. When comments collapsed, collective sensemaking collapsed with them, or was pushed into fragmented and opaque platforms.
The renewed interest in comments suggests a deeper hunger. People want to think together in context, not just react. If you treat commenting as the first step on the path toward shared understanding, the next step is not simply better comments, but shared overlays where identity, memory, and governance travel with the community across pages.
In that sense, comments are the beginning of collective intelligence, but only if they are allowed to grow beyond the page.
I think the point you’re making is essential. In the age of artificial intelligence, ‘the human factor becomes a key differentiator’. We need to build media for people and by people, with AI as a supporting layer, not a replacement. AI is clearly reshaping how media organizations are built and operated, but it shouldn’t divert us from a meaningful notion of progress.
The real risk, as you suggest, is an increasingly homogeneous media landscape, where outlets rely on the same sources, tools, and formats, and gradually lose their distinct identity. This is precisely where human judgment, participation, and conversation can make the difference—not as a nostalgic return to the past, but as a strategic choice.
Congratulations on this reflection. It’s a timely and necessary conversation about what kind of media we want to build in the AI era, and what role we choose to give people within that model.
Well said, Miquel. The line “media for people and by people, with AI as a supporting layer”really resonates. If AI is the accelerant, human context is the anchor. What’s exciting is that we now have the chance to build new layers of participation that don’t just happen inside media platforms, but above them in shared overlays where communities can carry context, values, and judgment across sites.
That’s where I think real pluralism can re-emerge by shaping how and where people show up in the flow of media itself.
We're exploring this idea through something called the meta-layer. If curious, there’s a live conversation happening here next week: https://luma.com/lpml
Thank you for your comment. It is truly inspiring to find people with similar perspectives. I often feel that on platforms like Substack, we are fortunate to encounter ideas that don't just reinforce our existing thoughts, but actually challenge us to think and stay motivated. Finding these spaces for open dialogue is fundamental.
Thanks again for the reference to the upcoming live talk!
As both a PR/communication researcher and American thinking about the role of intentional community in health and resistance, this has me picking reevaluating "best practices". Evaluation is the job, but so often experience can lead to shortcutting the thinking. Why are we even doing this? "Make number go up" has a weak business case but, more importantly, has no relationship to, and creates no relationship with, actual lives.
This resonates. The rise, collapse, and careful return of comments says less about “comments” themselves and more about the limits of page-bound interaction. People want to engage in context, but publishers have been forced to carry the full burden of identity, moderation, and governance alone.
One interesting direction is treating commenting not as a widget on a page, but as a shared overlay above the page, where identity, norms, and memory travel with communities across sites. In that model, discourse improves because it’s anchored to people and values, not just URLs, and publishers gain insight without owning all the risk.
We’ve been exploring this idea as part of a broader “meta-layer” approach: taking familiar Web2 features and upgrading them in a Web4 environment built on presence, community governance, and overlays. Commenting is just one example but it’s a revealing one.
Curious how others here think about the tradeoff between page-level comments and community-level context that spans the web.
I also like the idea of the singular entity that manifest over (or within?) the content of different sites. In reality, people take different forms in different corners of the internet. I am interested in different things and talk in different ways on the forum of my favourite sport site versus the Middle Eastern group chat I lurk in. How do you see that working?
And in the case of The Times', my sense was that users came back to speak to the same people each day — meaning identity across online spaces was less relevant. Is this the case in other communities? I'd be fascinated to know
Totally agree - identity isn't one-size-fits-all. Instead of a single fixed profile, people can move through different community layers that live above the web. When you're on a sports site, your "sports self" can show up in that layer, interact with others there, and collaborate around shared context. When you're on a Middle East site, you might just watch, stay invisible, and only go visible if you want to join the conversation. Same thing could happen with the Times.
Now imagine if the Times hosted their own meta-layer, tied to their current login system. Writers and readers could engage not just on Times pages, but across the web wherever Times-related content shows up. Same people, same community, but with a wider field of interaction.
This is what the meta-layer makes possible: not one identity everywhere, but contextual presence that travels with you. We’re diving into all this during Meta-Layer Week (next week) - welcome to join or just lurk: https://luma.com/lpml
It's testament to this piece that the comments from New_ Public readers are the most interesting part of this article! (at least to me)
Yes, and you sparked it. This whole thread traces back to your article. Bravo.
I keep imagining a web where a page or post is just the contextual footprint - a starting point for layered experiences, interactions, and meaning that branch outward. Ted Nelson, who coined the term "hyperlink," also coined "intertwingled" to describe this kind of web. It stuck with me.
Lately I've been calling it the Metaweb or Meta-Layer, but I’m also warming to the idea of a digital noosphere. Whatever the name, it’s a trust and coordination layer that lives above the web, and I think it should remain public, not captured by platforms or corporate logic.
Douglas Engelbart, one of the forgotten architects of modern computing and the web, saw all this coming. He didn’t just invent the mouse - he laid out a whole vision for augmenting collective intelligence. It’s kind of astonishing how little credit he gets for that.
A fine reflection of a much-maligned space. Personal pride compels me to point out that the three examples of commenting renaissance - WIRED, WaPo, FT - are all powered by the open source Coral platform that I led for a decade.
It's quite right that you claim your part in all this Andrew!
Nice! You probably know Trei Brundrett, who leads our Roundabout project
Oh yes :)
Another thing this moment highlights is that comments were never just about feedback. They were the web’s earliest attempt at collective learning. People pointed out errors, added sources, translated context, and learned together in public.
What broke was not the desire to learn socially, but the structure. Page-bound threads, fragile identity, and moderation models that could not scale made sustained learning impossible. When comments collapsed, collective sensemaking collapsed with them, or was pushed into fragmented and opaque platforms.
The renewed interest in comments suggests a deeper hunger. People want to think together in context, not just react. If you treat commenting as the first step on the path toward shared understanding, the next step is not simply better comments, but shared overlays where identity, memory, and governance travel with the community across pages.
In that sense, comments are the beginning of collective intelligence, but only if they are allowed to grow beyond the page.
I'm learning right now! Great point
I think the point you’re making is essential. In the age of artificial intelligence, ‘the human factor becomes a key differentiator’. We need to build media for people and by people, with AI as a supporting layer, not a replacement. AI is clearly reshaping how media organizations are built and operated, but it shouldn’t divert us from a meaningful notion of progress.
The real risk, as you suggest, is an increasingly homogeneous media landscape, where outlets rely on the same sources, tools, and formats, and gradually lose their distinct identity. This is precisely where human judgment, participation, and conversation can make the difference—not as a nostalgic return to the past, but as a strategic choice.
Congratulations on this reflection. It’s a timely and necessary conversation about what kind of media we want to build in the AI era, and what role we choose to give people within that model.
Well said, Miquel. The line “media for people and by people, with AI as a supporting layer”really resonates. If AI is the accelerant, human context is the anchor. What’s exciting is that we now have the chance to build new layers of participation that don’t just happen inside media platforms, but above them in shared overlays where communities can carry context, values, and judgment across sites.
That’s where I think real pluralism can re-emerge by shaping how and where people show up in the flow of media itself.
We're exploring this idea through something called the meta-layer. If curious, there’s a live conversation happening here next week: https://luma.com/lpml
Thank you for your comment. It is truly inspiring to find people with similar perspectives. I often feel that on platforms like Substack, we are fortunate to encounter ideas that don't just reinforce our existing thoughts, but actually challenge us to think and stay motivated. Finding these spaces for open dialogue is fundamental.
Thanks again for the reference to the upcoming live talk!
As both a PR/communication researcher and American thinking about the role of intentional community in health and resistance, this has me picking reevaluating "best practices". Evaluation is the job, but so often experience can lead to shortcutting the thinking. Why are we even doing this? "Make number go up" has a weak business case but, more importantly, has no relationship to, and creates no relationship with, actual lives.
This resonates. The rise, collapse, and careful return of comments says less about “comments” themselves and more about the limits of page-bound interaction. People want to engage in context, but publishers have been forced to carry the full burden of identity, moderation, and governance alone.
One interesting direction is treating commenting not as a widget on a page, but as a shared overlay above the page, where identity, norms, and memory travel with communities across sites. In that model, discourse improves because it’s anchored to people and values, not just URLs, and publishers gain insight without owning all the risk.
We’ve been exploring this idea as part of a broader “meta-layer” approach: taking familiar Web2 features and upgrading them in a Web4 environment built on presence, community governance, and overlays. Commenting is just one example but it’s a revealing one.
Curious how others here think about the tradeoff between page-level comments and community-level context that spans the web.
I also like the idea of the singular entity that manifest over (or within?) the content of different sites. In reality, people take different forms in different corners of the internet. I am interested in different things and talk in different ways on the forum of my favourite sport site versus the Middle Eastern group chat I lurk in. How do you see that working?
And in the case of The Times', my sense was that users came back to speak to the same people each day — meaning identity across online spaces was less relevant. Is this the case in other communities? I'd be fascinated to know
Totally agree - identity isn't one-size-fits-all. Instead of a single fixed profile, people can move through different community layers that live above the web. When you're on a sports site, your "sports self" can show up in that layer, interact with others there, and collaborate around shared context. When you're on a Middle East site, you might just watch, stay invisible, and only go visible if you want to join the conversation. Same thing could happen with the Times.
Now imagine if the Times hosted their own meta-layer, tied to their current login system. Writers and readers could engage not just on Times pages, but across the web wherever Times-related content shows up. Same people, same community, but with a wider field of interaction.
This is what the meta-layer makes possible: not one identity everywhere, but contextual presence that travels with you. We’re diving into all this during Meta-Layer Week (next week) - welcome to join or just lurk: https://luma.com/lpml