5 ms·

What we have now is no system, and unsurprisingly it rewards clickbait (i.e. sensationalism and confirmation bias). Instead, imagine a service built on blockch

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.
  - gerbilly 7y ago
    > Unfalsifiable information would not (and should not) be apart of the system. Then that's not human discourse. We are people, not robots.
    - douglaswlance 7y ago
      You would be free to share opinions outside of the system. News is meant to be objective reporting of facts. Facts must be falsifiable.
dagw 7y ago
Very little news (other than trivial news) is conclusively proved (or even provable) true or false in a way that all sides would agree on. All this would lead would be either just reporting after the fact news (a man was arrested in town X this morning charged with crime Y) or stories (even more) full of hedging language that cannot be conclusively falsifiable ("sources claim...", "some experts believe...", "we're hearing credible rumors that..." etc)
- douglaswlance 7y ago
  News is meant to be objective reporting of facts. Modern journalism has been corrupted by opinion and activism. Hedging language would be discouraged by a system that rewards factual reporting.
  - dagw 7y ago
    News is meant to be objective reporting of facts. I disagree, or at least that's not the only part of news. News should also include presenting the information that is on hand and the situation as it's currently understood even if the details are too murky to raise to the level of "fact". In addition I actually do want analysis from my journalists. I don't want them to just tell me that congress passed the XYZ bill and a link to the text (objective facts), and want them to tell me what effects they believe the bill is likely to have (opinion). I'm even OK with activism by journalists as long as they're up front with what they're doing, keep it separate from their overall reporting, and don't let it get in the way of telling the truth.

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.
- gerbilly 7y ago
  > Unfalsifiable information would not (and should not) be apart of the system. Then that's not human discourse. We are people, not robots.
  - douglaswlance 7y ago
    You would be free to share opinions outside of the system. News is meant to be objective reporting of facts. Facts must be falsifiable.

dagw 7y ago

Very little news (other than trivial news) is conclusively proved (or even provable) true or false in a way that all sides would agree on. All this would lead would be either just reporting after the fact news (a man was arrested in town X this morning charged with crime Y) or stories (even more) full of hedging language that cannot be conclusively falsifiable ("sources claim...", "some experts believe...", "we're hearing credible rumors that..." etc)

douglaswlance 7y ago
News is meant to be objective reporting of facts. Modern journalism has been corrupted by opinion and activism. Hedging language would be discouraged by a system that rewards factual reporting.
- dagw 7y ago
  News is meant to be objective reporting of facts. I disagree, or at least that's not the only part of news. News should also include presenting the information that is on hand and the situation as it's currently understood even if the details are too murky to raise to the level of "fact". In addition I actually do want analysis from my journalists. I don't want them to just tell me that congress passed the XYZ bill and a link to the text (objective facts), and want them to tell me what effects they believe the bill is likely to have (opinion). I'm even OK with activism by journalists as long as they're up front with what they're doing, keep it separate from their overall reporting, and don't let it get in the way of telling the truth.