5 ms·
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 hav
by gerbilly 8y 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 8y agoIf 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 8y 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 8y agoYou would be free to share opinions outside of the system. News is meant to be objective reporting of facts. Facts must be falsifiable.