Incubators Alumni Ample are on the Path to Better Public Discussion

“We started Ample on the idea that we need to improve the quality of public discussion and we wanted to include the scientific community more actively in the dialogue,” says Sampsa Aerikkala, Founder & CEO of Ample, a University of Helsinki Incubator alumni start-up and Slush100 Top 20 Finalist.

“Although some of the motivations were more personal in just wanting a more trustworthy and informational communication platform than what was currently on offer,” extended Aleksi Nurmi, Founder, COO & Chairman of Ample and a University of Helsinki alumni, and continues, “others were based on our understanding of the changing nature of how information spreads in society, and how people stay informed.”

In the coming years, the Ample team believes the transformative impact of AI-assisted media and AI-generated content will reshape the information landscape even more profoundly than social media and its influential rise did in years past. “Many contributors and news publishers will need to reposition themselves for a market where content is produced and distributed at minimal cost, all while facing immense pressure on existing consumer relationships and revenue models,” Aerikkala envisions.

The public’s interest in news, however, is not disappearing – though it is changing. “More interaction and insight will be demanded from news media,” Nurmi predicts. Currently, he says, citizens trust scientists the most as a source of information, and the Ample team sees that this sentiment will only continue to be reinforced in the current evolving information environment. Yet in their eyes, the current landscape has been lacking a crucial element it sorely needs to remain healthy: a direct channel for open dialogue between citizens, news media, and the scientific community, something that Ample now wishes to provide.

As Aerikkala explains, “We see that the future of staying informed is first and foremost conversational but should promote understanding instead of polarisation.”

The service focuses on users on each side of their two-sided platform. “We want to give the scientific community an effective way to share their insights with the public,” Aerikkala says, reiterating their motivations, “Simultaneously, we want to provide the public with a direct channel to engage with the scientific community. For news media, our service addresses two critical pain points by increasing their traffic and engagement by reintegrating public discussion into the news media sites, immediately next to the news stories.”

During the time that they’ve been building Ample, Aerikkala and Nurmi say that no other question has been asked more times of them than “Why would scientists want to participate in public discussion?”

“This has been a strange one to answer,” Nurmi says, “as we haven’t heard it from the scientists themselves. Quite the contrary, we have been excited to see such an interested and supportive reaction from the members of the scientific community, willing to share their expertise and participate in public discussion. Active dialogue and interaction with the public are clearly seen as integral elements of modern research and science communication.”

The ability of scientists to address ethical, societal, and practical implications in a broader context, the Ample team explains, makes them indispensable commentators on current events. As far as communication channels go, they see it is natural for researchers to actively participate in public discussion through high-quality news media articles, in connection with the news and before the discussion becomes fragmented on social media.

Ample’s approach is built for a future where news is not merely presented but engaged with in a dialogue, leading to deeper understanding through conversation. This culture, they believe, promises a more informed and actively engaged public, embodying the essence of what quality journalism aims to achieve in the future. “And we see the scientific community in a critical role in the future of public discussion,” Aerikkala concludes.