For discussion group leads
You run a reading circle, a philosophy night, or a research group. The loudest read of the text wins the room, the quiet member's better point three weeks ago is gone, and every session starts back at zero. UpTrust ranks a comment by trust on the exact subject at hand, lays out every side of a hard question in one place, and keeps the record around after everyone logs off.
Not who talked longest
Trust on UpTrust is tied to a topic, not to a person as a whole. Someone can be trusted a great deal on the text you are actually discussing and not at all on some other subject, and the two ratings stay separate. A confident voice does not get to carry that confidence into a subject they have not earned it on. Every topic page shows the voices trusted most on that exact subject, so the group's real judgment on tonight's question is visible, not just its loudest opinion.

The hard question, mapped
Questions is a public list of the things people genuinely disagree about, with each side laid out fairly in one place instead of scattered across old messages. Open one and you will find several named perspectives, so no single reading drowns out the rest, alongside a synthesis that draws the threads together. Bring a contested question from your reading into the group already mapped, and spend the session arguing about the actual disagreement instead of reconstructing who said what.

Before the session, and after
Mirror is a private, weekly read on how you come across when you post and reply. Paste a draft take into its Pre-Publish Preview before the meeting and see how it reads before anyone else does. Inside the group itself, channels hold the discussion between sessions: reply in a thread to keep side arguments tidy, use Map to see the shape of a long back-and-forth, and pin the message that actually settled something so it does not wash away in the scroll.


Start a group, tag your first discussion with a topic, and see who the room actually trusts on it.
Sign Up