random brainstorming ideas for things the ideal sane discourse encouraging social media platform would have:

• have an LM look at the comment you're writing and real time give feedback on things like "are you sure you want to say that? people will interpret that as an attack and become more defensive, so your point will not be heard". addendum: if it notices you're really fuming and flame warring, literally gray out the text box for 2 minutes with a message like "take a deep breath. go for a walk. yelling never changes minds"
• have some threaded chat component bolted on (I have takes on best threading system). big problem is posts are fundamentally too high effort to be a way to think; people want to talk over chat (see success of discord). dialogues were ok but still too high effort and nobody wants to read the transcript. one stupid idea is have an LM look at the transcript and gently nudge people to write things up if the convo is interesting and to have UI affordances to make it low friction (eg a single button that instantly creates a new post and automatically invites everyone from the convo to edit, and auto populates the headers)
• inspired by the court system, the most autistically rule following part of the US government: have explicit trusted judges who can be summoned to adjudicate claims or meta level "is this valid arguing" claims. top level judges are selected for fixed terms by a weighted sortition scheme that uses some game theoretic / schelling point stuff to discourage partisanship
• recommendation system where you can say what kind of stuff you want to be recommended in some text box in the settings. also when people click "good/bad rec" buttons on the home page, try to notice patterns and occasionally ask the user whether a specific noticed pattern is correct and ask whether they want it appended to their rec preferences
• opt in anti scrolling pop up that asks you every few days what the highest value interaction you had recently on the site was, or whether you're just mindlessly scrolling. gently reminds you to take a break if you can't come up with a good example of a good interaction.
• argument mapping is really cool imo but I think most attempts fail because they try to make arguments super structured and legible. I think a less structured version that lets you vote on how much you think various posts respond to other posts and how well you think it addresses the key points and which posts overlap in arguments would be valuable. like you'd see clusters with (human written and vote selected) summaries of various clusters, and then links of various strengths inter cluster. I think this would greatly help epistemics by avoiding infinite argument retreading