In general, I appreciate that you took the time to provide a thoughtful response to my post.  Several hours after posting it, I became afraid that it might have been too edgy and might be considered offensive.  I hope that you didn't, in fact, take any offense. 

Still, while I'm not as troubled by your three examples, I still think they warrant a little worry.  What it comes down to is this - I suspect many people will be less likely to speak if they feel they are more likely to be critiqued.

Have you ever known people who have disenabled the comment feature on certain blog posts?  Often these people don't want to be critiqued, and can at least prevent themselves from being critiqued on their own site.  With Rayt, they can no longer prevent it.  Will this make them less likely to speak out?

There are numerous instances similar to this. 

Anything that hinders the communication of ideas - even bad ideas - worries me.  That's all. 

In any case, thanks again.  Your response was very interesting, and I'm glad you wrote it.    

1. An art gallery, where critics write criticisms and then the people who visit the art gallery vote on which criticisms they agree with and the winners are placed next to the work of art.

2. A store, at which customers leave comments in a comment box and then other shoppers select what comments they agree with. The winning comments are placed on shelf below the products.

3. A political meeting where all attendees must write their questions down on a sheet of paper before th meeting starts and then other attendees vote on which comments they find most interesting or important. The winning questions are asked during the meeting.

The ideas are both generated and mediated by the public.

To you, then, it would be good if one thousand people stood behind Bill O'Reilly as he broadcasted.

I, on the other hand, find the image quite scary.  If I were a broadcaster, the yeller-experience would be terrible, and, I suspect, it would effect the content of my future broadcasts, if broadcasts continued at all.  The yellers would, in effect, have prevented/obstructed certain ideas from being spread and discussed.

The more I read about Rayt, the the more it sounds like you are trying to create a web at which one can express his point of view, but only if he's willing to let everyone else dump on him in his own forum.  If you post on the web, you run the risk of having comments fall, in piles, over your website.  

And you're right - it would be as if people were yelling at you.  It would be like people with megaphones.  I agree. 

It could be crushing.

I know that I, myself, would be less likely to create a website with demanding content on it, if I thought I could get yelled at or megaphoned ON MY OWN SITE.  Since I'm not all that strange, I suspect other people might think the same way.  If so, then a successful Rayt project would, in fact, obstruct/prevent certain ideas from spreading.  It would limit the communication of ideas.

I value the existence of forums in which one can express his view without hearing everyone else's.   I'm scared by the following ideas:

1.  An art gallery, where critics are allowed to post their critiques on
the wall, right next to the art.

2.  A store, at which customers can post their unfiltered comments on
the walls and the product.

3.  A political meeting where people can constantly yell mean comments from the crowd.

All of these things seem bad.  Again, I really do value the existence of forums in which you can express your views without hearing everyone else's.

You don't value forums like this?