3 ms·

100% correct. The situation we have now is that the same news events are reported in 1000s of newspapers that add bias. For example, if Trump holds a rally in A

100% correct. The situation we have now is that the same news events are reported in 1000s of newspapers that add bias. For example, if Trump holds a rally in Alabama and says "Build The Wall" it is reported in The New York Times as 'Trump hates immigrants" and on Fox News as "Trump vows to protect America". NewsBlocks simply strips out those biases, converts the news event to data (Who: Trump. Where: Alabama. Quote: "Build The Wall") and then stores the data on the blockchain, where it can be retrieved by anyone who wants to build apps with the data.

yesenadam 8y ago
So who selects which facts to include? Which sources are considered worthy of inclusion? I don't think there's an 'unbiased' ('free' of particular values) way of doing even that. Using example about president said X aren't good examples, I don't think - most news isn't like this. Or you will just have things the president said? When talking about things that happened, I suggest that, apart from disputes about what actually happened, choice of verb is a matter of interpretation. And the 'terrorist/freedom fighter' question. How you see the world, how you describe what happens in it, is a function of what you believe. Gee, the political spectrum is NYT - Fox News?!.. (They're both on the right, like your two main political parties) simply strips out those biases - these phrases are amazing for me to read. It sounds staggeringly naïve to me. But sure, go for it. So then it sounds like you think a bias-free TV news or newspaper should be possible? Well, wouldn't that be a good thing? Anyway. I look forward to the results, good luck with that. It reminds me of when I started writing a program which could write poetry/jokes. I quickly realized it would have to know everything about the world.[0] But still, actually trying was very valuable, gave me some vivid lessons. [0] e.g. see in Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things the chapter about the dozens of different meanings of the word over and how they're related.
- jay_kyburz 8y ago
  I don't think anybody is saying it will be easy. It's a big crazy idea that we would like to step toward. What facts to include? Well why have a limit? Record everything anybody is willing to testify to. Include all sources. Joe testifies that X happened. Jill testifies that y happened. One or the other might be mistaken or have a heavy bias, but if the data was available we make our own judgments. Also, we could try and stop using heavy loaded terms like terrorist / freedom fighters for example. We could try and develop neutral language. The problem right now is that the news strives to be entertaining. Just facts without colour is very boring.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    Oh.. it will include conflicting testimony? Well, that's something more than 'just facts'. Although sure, it's a fact that someone made statement X. Hopefully. Often press releases, political announcements, are given precisely to hide the truth.. Yet a lot of current news takes these as fact. Anyway. Yeah, I don't think 'neutral language' or 'just facts' is at all possible. Even if you think you've achieved it..it will seem 'biased' to other people. I don't think anybody is saying it will be easy. It's a big crazy idea that we would like to step toward. Hehe ok great, I love that. Good luck! I wish you the best.

yesenadam 8y ago

So who selects which facts to include? Which sources are considered worthy of inclusion? I don't think there's an 'unbiased' ('free' of particular values) way of doing even that. Using example about president said X aren't good examples, I don't think - most news isn't like this. Or you will just have things the president said? When talking about things that happened, I suggest that, apart from disputes about what actually happened, choice of verb is a matter of interpretation. And the 'terrorist/freedom fighter' question. How you see the world, how you describe what happens in it, is a function of what you believe. Gee, the political spectrum is NYT - Fox News?!.. (They're both on the right, like your two main political parties) simply strips out those biases - these phrases are amazing for me to read. It sounds staggeringly naïve to me. But sure, go for it. So then it sounds like you think a bias-free TV news or newspaper should be possible? Well, wouldn't that be a good thing? Anyway. I look forward to the results, good luck with that. It reminds me of when I started writing a program which could write poetry/jokes. I quickly realized it would have to know everything about the world.[0] But still, actually trying was very valuable, gave me some vivid lessons. [0] e.g. see in Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things the chapter about the dozens of different meanings of the word over and how they're related.

jay_kyburz 8y ago
I don't think anybody is saying it will be easy. It's a big crazy idea that we would like to step toward. What facts to include? Well why have a limit? Record everything anybody is willing to testify to. Include all sources. Joe testifies that X happened. Jill testifies that y happened. One or the other might be mistaken or have a heavy bias, but if the data was available we make our own judgments. Also, we could try and stop using heavy loaded terms like terrorist / freedom fighters for example. We could try and develop neutral language. The problem right now is that the news strives to be entertaining. Just facts without colour is very boring.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Oh.. it will include conflicting testimony? Well, that's something more than 'just facts'. Although sure, it's a fact that someone made statement X. Hopefully. Often press releases, political announcements, are given precisely to hide the truth.. Yet a lot of current news takes these as fact. Anyway. Yeah, I don't think 'neutral language' or 'just facts' is at all possible. Even if you think you've achieved it..it will seem 'biased' to other people. I don't think anybody is saying it will be easy. It's a big crazy idea that we would like to step toward. Hehe ok great, I love that. Good luck! I wish you the best.