My solutions is just throw the idea of "order" out the window and instead use a "sorting hat" process. Sure, by default it may appear in chronological order or "most votes" but based on why you - the reader - came upon that content in the first place, you'll be able to more easily sift for what you're looking for.
Whether you're in the mood for a pun thread, some criticism, or some "deep thoughts", you'll be able to pluck those out from the greater total conversation and then work forward or backwards in the context from those points. Even if a pun thread was the first 100 upvoted comments, you'd be able to discard those with one click and get to the first "serious" response.
Basically, it's because I know what it's like to browse r/science.
(((There's a hash fragment appended to your link, which makes it point to somewhere in the middle of the linked page, and it took fairly long before I realized I should start reading from the top. The hash fragment: In `www.newschallenge.org/...-that-just-makes-sense/#c-aaf90...f7977e`, the #.... part should probably have been removed? )))
I like this initiative! In the video, I like the idea that people be able to discuss only a part of a legislation proposal. Actually I've been experimenting with something related, namely inline comments, http://www.debiki.com/-81101-future-features#inline-comments.
Re: "based on why you - the reader - came upon that content in the first place, you'll be able to more easily sift for what you're looking for" — do you sort comments based on some information you have on the visitor?
Re: "and then work forward or backwards in the context from those points" This somewhat reminds me of considering the discussion being a graph of comments, in which you can navigate freely back and forth? And you can quickly bypass subthreads (e.g. replies to the pun thread?)?
Also, I like what you've done with your inline comments. For my project we don't just use it for "improvements" but for suggestions, general comments, questions, etc...a whole range of taggable purposes for which you'd be highlighting that section in the legislation. So you'd highlight first, name a purpose second, then type your content.
We wouldn't collect any info on the visitor other than what they provide ("I don't want to see _____" would remove posts marked as such).
I read some of the blog post comments, and got the impression that there's not currently any live demo. — If in the future you publish something online, then, if you want to, please feel free to send me an email. I live far away in Sweden though, so I'd be mostly interested in the tech parts (rather than contributing). (Perhaps I could help you with usability testing though, or give you related feedback, if that'd be useful.)
My solutions is just throw the idea of "order" out the window and instead use a "sorting hat" process. Sure, by default it may appear in chronological order or "most votes" but based on why you - the reader - came upon that content in the first place, you'll be able to more easily sift for what you're looking for.
Whether you're in the mood for a pun thread, some criticism, or some "deep thoughts", you'll be able to pluck those out from the greater total conversation and then work forward or backwards in the context from those points. Even if a pun thread was the first 100 upvoted comments, you'd be able to discard those with one click and get to the first "serious" response.
Basically, it's because I know what it's like to browse r/science.