4 ms·

Why do we need centralized dissemination of information? How does that benefit society? Top-down, command and control has always lead to non-optimal outcomes th

Why do we need centralized dissemination of information? How does that benefit society? Top-down, command and control has always lead to non-optimal outcomes throughout history. In the absence of centralized journalistic outlets, we could have open access to data/information and a reputation system that rewards objective, consistent analysis. Let the old systems die, so new ones can be developed. We should stop subsidizing legacy systems.

matt4077 7y ago
“we will have open access to data/information and a reputation system that rewards objective, consistent analysis.” I have no idea what this means, nor do I know why newspapers apparently need to die to make it possible? In any case, existing media is pretty close to a functioning “reputation system”.
- douglaswlance 7y ago
  That means instead of having a layer of journalists between the public and sources of information, we would have an open system whereby anyone can download the data and analyse it themselves. They don't need to die. But if we stop subsidizing them, new systems would have the room to grow. The media is far from a functional reputation system. The "Paper of Record", the New York Times, regularly publishes outright falsehoods or extremely biased reporting that paints truth in the worst possible light. There are all sorts of subtle manipulations that they use from word choices, ordering of information, image choices, etc. to manipulate people into believing one thing or another.
  - matt4077 7y ago
    Name one outright falsehood in the NYT that isn’t old enough to have graduated high school. You also failed to elaborate how any system of trust would work in the absence of the reputational system that is mediated by such branding as those you list. Instead, you’re just offering the tired and cynic the-media-is-terrible conspiratorial drivel.
    - douglaswlance 7y ago
      You can see a log of retractions: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections These are just the ones they admit to. Who knows how many unnamed sources don't actually exist or other factual errors pass unretracted.
gerbilly 7y ago
> we will have [...] a reputation system that rewards objective, consistent analysis. This is unlikely. We will get a reputation system that rewards sensationalism, and polarization of viewpoints. This is already happening in the newspaper industry, where they try to combat it as best they can. It's magical thinking to believe that technology and a laissez faire approach will do anything but accelerate the decline.
- douglaswlance 7y ago
  What we have now is no system, and unsurprisingly it rewards clickbait (i.e. sensationalism and confirmation bias). Instead, imagine a service built on blockchain where publishers (users who generate content) were rewarded by readers (consumers of content) with tokens that were spent by betting on the validity of said content. If that content was later proven false, the user would lose their bet. If proven true, the user would win the bet and have the ability to bet again. Publishers with the most won bets would be ranked highest in terms of reputation.
  - gerbilly 7y ago
    Sounds like American idol for news. Who would decide if an article is 'proven true'? Some kind of majority vote? In the jim crow era lots of people would have 'proven' some very unsavory facts about a certain population of people. Any substantive piece of journalism—beyond simple facts—can't be proven true, because it's trafficking in viewpoints that can't be proven true in a binary sense. However from a reputable paper, that viewpoint is supported by at least two independent sources, and argued fairly and in good faith.
    - douglaswlance 7y ago
      If 51% of users assent that a piece of information is true, then it would be deemed true by the system. Unfalsifiable information would not (and should not) be apart of the system. It is wholly irrelevant for public consumption. Opinions would be relegated to Facebook and Twitter.

matt4077 7y ago

“we will have open access to data/information and a reputation system that rewards objective, consistent analysis.” I have no idea what this means, nor do I know why newspapers apparently need to die to make it possible? In any case, existing media is pretty close to a functioning “reputation system”.

douglaswlance 7y ago
That means instead of having a layer of journalists between the public and sources of information, we would have an open system whereby anyone can download the data and analyse it themselves. They don't need to die. But if we stop subsidizing them, new systems would have the room to grow. The media is far from a functional reputation system. The "Paper of Record", the New York Times, regularly publishes outright falsehoods or extremely biased reporting that paints truth in the worst possible light. There are all sorts of subtle manipulations that they use from word choices, ordering of information, image choices, etc. to manipulate people into believing one thing or another.
- matt4077 7y ago
  Name one outright falsehood in the NYT that isn’t old enough to have graduated high school. You also failed to elaborate how any system of trust would work in the absence of the reputational system that is mediated by such branding as those you list. Instead, you’re just offering the tired and cynic the-media-is-terrible conspiratorial drivel.
  - douglaswlance 7y ago
    You can see a log of retractions: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections These are just the ones they admit to. Who knows how many unnamed sources don't actually exist or other factual errors pass unretracted.

gerbilly 7y ago

> we will have [...] a reputation system that rewards objective, consistent analysis. This is unlikely. We will get a reputation system that rewards sensationalism, and polarization of viewpoints. This is already happening in the newspaper industry, where they try to combat it as best they can. It's magical thinking to believe that technology and a laissez faire approach will do anything but accelerate the decline.

douglaswlance 7y ago
What we have now is no system, and unsurprisingly it rewards clickbait (i.e. sensationalism and confirmation bias). Instead, imagine a service built on blockchain where publishers (users who generate content) were rewarded by readers (consumers of content) with tokens that were spent by betting on the validity of said content. If that content was later proven false, the user would lose their bet. If proven true, the user would win the bet and have the ability to bet again. Publishers with the most won bets would be ranked highest in terms of reputation.
- gerbilly 7y ago
  Sounds like American idol for news. Who would decide if an article is 'proven true'? Some kind of majority vote? In the jim crow era lots of people would have 'proven' some very unsavory facts about a certain population of people. Any substantive piece of journalism—beyond simple facts—can't be proven true, because it's trafficking in viewpoints that can't be proven true in a binary sense. However from a reputable paper, that viewpoint is supported by at least two independent sources, and argued fairly and in good faith.
  - douglaswlance 7y ago
    If 51% of users assent that a piece of information is true, then it would be deemed true by the system. Unfalsifiable information would not (and should not) be apart of the system. It is wholly irrelevant for public consumption. Opinions would be relegated to Facebook and Twitter.