I agree that complex system discussions must be driven by people educated in the ways of complex systems, possibly from perspective of economists, justice system, etc.
Of course digging through the hieroglyphics around the issues becomes difficult for laymen, even those educated in the relevant topics. And it does become more work than fun. But many online discussions are at the level of work already. People start them for "fun" then get frustrated for being wrong, downvoted, misunderstood etc. There is an addicting effect and it turns from "fun" to work of salvaging reputation, revenge, etc.
Also content farms release misleading, throwaway information that gets attention. For them it is work and often very not fun.
Their efforts could be channeled to better ends by new software.
Compare this to Yahoo Answers: Somewhere where everybody has an opinion, but nobody is expert enough to give a straightforwardly correct answer to the most basic questions.
If your target is to have more intellectual questions, I don't think it follows that it will be straightforward to attract more informed opinion.
And if this is true, then the parent's idea might not be feasible. If it isn't true, then the parent might have a feasible idea. So... perhaps you could comment explaining why you're down-voting? I honestly don't understand.
(Also, the first sentence is just true... the venues I mentioned are nearly universally more informative than a comment board... srsly, not trolling.)
Original post:
If you want high-quality commentary all you need to do is get off the internet comment boards. These outlets exist. They are generally called journal articles, policy briefs, court opinions, etc.
> Rather than have new stories refine or even change arguments and their conclusions, most people on the internet just chase their tails in circles.
I think there's something deeper going on than a short memory span.
At some point (usually pretty quickly), you have to start either 1) making moral judgments, which is a whole branch of philosophy or 2) analyzing non-trivial factual claims.
To do this, you need people who are trained in science or well-read in philosophy/political science, depending on the topic. At that point, might as well just read journal articles in relevant fields.
The quality of argumentation on the internet might get a little better than it is today with good tools, but I don't think it can improve significantly. At some point you're asking for actual quality research (i.e. work), as opposed to armchair sophistry (i.e. fun).
> Even with those different value systems, it should be possible at some point to pick out the thought leaders across different spheres that transcend typical Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Theist, Atheist labels with arguments that are acknowledged across the board as being internally consistent and factually based.
Maybe on some technical topics. But even academics and policy analysts often disagree along ideological lines.
> as being internally consistent and factually based.
These are both fairly low bars.