I say this with respect and for your benefit: this is the most cringe inducing product description I’ve ever read.

Ah, thanks for that feedback. Would you like to try your hand of writing a better summary here? It would be appreciated, as it's hard to improve from just a single word criticism (cringe).

"Product abc.xyz is like Facebook, without the suck."

"A cure for the common platform"

I'm suspicious that for the cringe might result from the suggestion that alternative points of view might have value.

Can you elaborate on the source of the cringe? I went to read it based on your description, hoping for a dose of cringe. In the end, I did not detect it.

To me it seemed like a decent introduction to a tool designed to help get people take a look outside of their bubbles.

I think it's from

> to playfully challenge perspectives, while unlocking achievements

Who's looking to "playfully challenge perspectives"? and "[unlock] achievements"? Discussions aren't generally a game, but this seems to pitch it that way. I don't know about you guys, but I think more often than not, discussions are a generally stressful thing that people do because they must. The description might benefit in changing to a somewhat more serious tone.

Also, talking of "unlocking achievements" gives the project a manipulative kind of feel. The description states what it offers to people, and in that is the mention of being able to obtain fake internet points in the form of achievements. Is fake internet points supposed to motivate one to join the project?

Anyway, I'm just trying to expand on what's probably cringey. It's still good work.

It’s this mainly. It’s not cringe because it’s stupid, it’s cringe to me because i think it’s naive. Baking in the playful aspect makes me imagine that the person creating this has this vision in his head that people are friendly and that playfully challenging each others perspectives will result in anything. People are invested in their perspectives and they aren’t going to change them — not in light of facts, logic, threats or playfulness. This guy thinks that playfully challenging perspectives is going to scale to more than a handful of people? It’s naive. Maybe I’m reading it wrong but that’s how I read it.

Also, the achievements angle is also cringe for me because achievements are a buzzword fad that makes me think the person behind this thing is not a very deep thinker, doesn’t appreciate the fact that it will look bad to advertise the achievements, and maybe is a person who has trouble thinking for himself and gets swept up into actually believing fads.

If I were going to write a description it would be something like this: a platform where people are given the opportunity to refine their opinions based on civil discussion with the assistance of a tasteful incentive scheme.

It seems to bring down to earth a bit. Reading criticism that is so personal can be upsetting. I genuinely hope that I have in no way upset this person. We all learn these hard lessons from time to time. I know I’ve had more than I can count.

Ah, let me see if I can add some details and re-adjust the wording:

"DTC is a community-driven live discussion platform that matches you one-on-one to challenge ideas. The experience is fun and quirky as users control talking virtual avatars and rate each other on their politeness. Achievements are earned for good behavior (via similar techniques Overwatch uses to curb aggressive behavior), while toxic behavior is flagged to be reviewed by moderators. Good behavior is also rewarded with points that allow further avatar customization and new environment unlocks."

Does this help?

I'm not disagreeing with you (I've never used this service you linked) ... but what becomes "the town square" has nothing to do with how optimized or tuned it is for that purpose. People are gonna do what people are gonna do, and if you want to be involved with certain people, you gotta go where they are.

Thanks, we're in the process of connecting directly with different communities. There's a few towns in California that we're working with to bring local civil debate topics to the platform. It's actually been a common topic of feedback for many of these towns that it's hard for people to discuss policies in a physical location because of time constraints, as well as traveling across town during after work rush hour traffic. Facebook groups/pages are often used for local community discussion, but they are not in practice 'town halls' where people talk about policies and are able to work through differences of opinion. There's a lot of research out there now that shows that Facebook and Twitter have had very little success in fostering cross-viewpoint discussions, mostly due to the platform mechanics.

that doesnt appear to serve the same function.

when I think of a local facebook group for a neighborhood its a bunch of people helping each other or complaining. stuff like "we're those gunshots, road xxx is closed so is taco bell, my cat is missing, hey this event is happening this weekend, im having trouble making rent this month." it works, because everyone is on it. network effect + a lack of baked in structure.

If you ever market your product in France, don't use that acronym.

Explain please?