If the content on your blog is valuable, people will discuss it anyway in various places where discussion happens. They will discuss it on HN, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, the fediverse. Everywhere where it’s convenient.
I’ve come to the conclusion that adding one more discussion outlet won’t concentrate the discussion in one place. Even when said outlet sits right next to the posts themselves and is ‘canonical’, that’s just not going to happen. On the contrary, it will just contribute to the dispersion of discussion.
Besides, having comments under an article means that the article stops being a document and starts being an application [0], and that’s something I’d like to avoid. So, no comments on my blog.
But I do plan to link to HN threads so it’s easier to find discussion where it happens. I just don’t see value in it happening next to the articles themselves.
As a counterpoint, I dislike any blog that links back to HN for discussion.
It’s not a playground for everyone’s blogs to use, and there is no guarantee an article will be posted at all - unless the author resorts to systematically posting his own content, which is another undesirable outcome.
On Twitter, you might get different people posting about it, and accompanying thread, but no way to find them. I think there’s still room for comment systems.
I’ve come to the conclusion that adding one more discussion outlet won’t concentrate the discussion in one place. Even when said outlet sits right next to the posts themselves and is ‘canonical’, that’s just not going to happen. On the contrary, it will just contribute to the dispersion of discussion.
Besides, having comments under an article means that the article stops being a document and starts being an application [0], and that’s something I’d like to avoid. So, no comments on my blog.
But I do plan to link to HN threads so it’s easier to find discussion where it happens. I just don’t see value in it happening next to the articles themselves.
[0]: https://blog.danieljanus.pl/2019/10/07/web-of-documents/