I have been writing about the failings of the blog as a means of communication and the result that in the hands of social media corporations the blog actually hinders discussion by forcing the choice of topic set by the blog owner and discouraging the natural topic drift and destractions that distinguish normal useful, meaningful, and fruitful human discourse,
I had argued that the complexity of conversation available in e-mail and the discussion forum, which appeared before the blog, are actually better tools for discussion that cannot take place on most social media and blog based web sites. I am not arguing that it is impossible to debate and discuss in a blog, only that it is too hard to do in a way that doesn't upset the train of thought of most readers. The way to handle this is to allow for quoting from others' posts in replying to them and to allow for these sequences of replies to get a new topic line that constitutes a new thread. Context reply and threading are not commonly supported in most blogs.
An additional idea is that a topic hierarchy, such as existed in the naming of USENET newsgroups is superior to the social media model of letting topics get promoted on the basis of interest. In fact, many of longest threads in USENET groups are far less interesting than some of the shorter subthreads, but a topic hiererarchy helps organize these better than the headlines of Slashdot or the Front Page of Reddit, where subreddits come cloest to the ieda of a topic hierarchy, A logical anding of subreddits would be closer.