My point is, you should explicitly call out the problems on the left, and then explain the outcomes/consequences or why they are bad on the right hand side of the arrows.

jeff

#2 Bias -> Group-Think & Required Moderation

As you have it, you kindof have two sortof related things for #1, a stop-gap solution statement as #2, then this wierd arrow that makes #3 different/adhoc compared to the first two.

bitcoin

[RFC] Stacker News Pitch Deck Draft #2

k00b

# For Slide 2

> #1 Low quality contributions and spam
> #2 Moderation is required
> #3 Centralization -> censorship

s/b something more like...

> #1 Noise -> Low Effort Posts & Spam 
> #2 Bias -> Group-Think & Required Moderation
> #3 Censorship -> Conflicts & Governance

As you have it, you kindof have two sortof related things for #1, a stop-gap solution statement as #2, then this wierd arrow that makes #3 different/adhoc compared to the first two.

For Slide 2For Slide 2