10 ms·

The vast, vast majority of yesterday's conspiracy theories remain just conspiracy theories, and the vast majority of today's likely will as well. I'd be perfect

The vast, vast majority of yesterday's conspiracy theories remain just conspiracy theories, and the vast majority of today's likely will as well. I'd be perfectly comfortable having anything that looks like a conspiracy theory hidden, and if tomorrow it becomes a verified fact (with enough evidence having accumulated for it to get covered in a non-mocking way by NYT or NPR or whatever), to see it then. Occasionally it's possible I'd find out about a few true things later than everybody else, but it's not like the course of human events depends on my knowing things the moment they're knowable. I think I'd be fine.

jaredwiener 4y ago
As mentioned in another comment further down, this is what I'm building. https://www.forth.news https://www.forth.news Its a news feed, but populated by journalists, governed by an editorial policy. No conspiracies, no misinformation, no spam. Just news.
- xtian 4y ago
  What about when the journalists push conspiracy theories? (e.g., Russiagate)
  - jaredwiener 4y ago
    We have an editorial policy that I'd invite you to look at: https://www.forth.news/docs/editorial https://www.forth.news/docs/editorial But basically, we cant be a truth telling machine. We can, however, filter out the obvious noise and hold our journalist partners accountable if we find issues with their reporting. We speak with every reporter who onboards to the site, and reach out when needed.
    - xtian 4y ago
      How will you try to find issues? Many claims are made and accepted as true in the media without any verifiable facts to back them up. There's an inherently political valence to which claims receive this treatment at every level (national, geopolitical, etc).
      - jaredwiener 4y ago
        That claim itself sounds like it could use some verification to back it up. That said, this is why we vet journalists as they come on. We cannot guarantee that no one will ever get something wrong, but we can limit how often it happens. On Twitter/HN/etc, anyone can post anything and face little to no consequences -- thats how trolling can happen. Journalists have bylines attached, and those mess ups can haunt them the rest of their careers. They don't want to get things wrong. We don't want them to get things wrong either. And if something is wrong, then we put out a correction.
    - doublepg23 4y ago
      Have you reached out to Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal? They’ve been some of the few upstanding journalists in media.
      - jaredwiener 4y ago
        We have not; though I believe they take a little more of a position than we're comfortable with -- we're looking for straight reporting, without opinion. Any journalists who are interested should reach out -- https://journalists.forth.news https://journalists.forth.news
    - latency-guy2 4y ago
      > hold our journalist partners accountable What does this exactly mean? I personally don't think a journalist is "held accountable" if all that's being done is an email to them asking for a correction or clarification in an article.
      - yencabulator 4y ago
        Generally, corrections and retractions are the responsibility of the editor, not the individual journalist (of course, the editor can delegate the work, but they're still responsible for it). The mechanism and its working is pretty well established, by now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper)
- dannyisaphantom 4y ago
  I was just browsing your site a few days ago; did you just push a UI update? It looks a lot better and is a lot more relaxing on the eyes (eye strain) that it was before. Looks great.
  - jaredwiener 4y ago
    Thank you! Great to hear
- mc32 4y ago
  Is it not difficult to know whether a conspiracy theory ends up being a conspiracy or on the other hand a belief ending up being an actual conspiracy and the only tool to suss things out is the passage of time? We will likely not have certainty on the JFK assassination, unless the remaining sealed docs have relevant info.
- willis936 4y ago
  Not all journalism is created equal. I've found that NYT's The Daily coverage of SVB has been rife with misinformation and editorialization. They picked a controversial narrative du jour and expected the listeners to be stupid enough to believe whatever lies or spin they say.
timr 4y ago
> The vast, vast majority of yesterday's conspiracy theories remain just conspiracy theories, and the vast majority of today's likely will as well. Maybe! You have no way of knowing which ones. > I'd be perfectly comfortable having anything that looks like a conspiracy theory hidden To rephrase: you'd be happy to have anything that makes you feel like it's a conspiracy theory hidden from view. A perfect way to guarantee confirmation bias. I suggest the alternative approach: if you aren't willing to keep an open enough mind to consider new evidence that challenges your assumptions, don't have an opinion. > with enough evidence having accumulated for it to get covered in a non-mocking way by NYT or NPR or whatever As a side note: if you think this is an objective standard for reliable evidence, you're in over your head. Just judging based on their commentary concerning topics in which I am an expert, neither is a reliable source of "blind faith" information. Danger, Will Robinson.
- jaredwiener 4y ago
  You can follow the Sagan Standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard) "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
  - whiddershins 4y ago
    Unfortunately we aren’t so great at evaluating what an extraordinary claim is.
    - jaredwiener 4y ago
      This is sort of why journalism is an actual profession. Editors do this, or at least are supposed to. Listening to everything everyone says can have its upsides, but filtering out noise is not one of them.
      - whiddershins 4y ago
        Thats ... why on earth would I think any of the people involved in journalism are better at this than I am? That's not remotely their job description.

jaredwiener 4y ago

As mentioned in another comment further down, this is what I'm building. https://www.forth.news https://www.forth.news Its a news feed, but populated by journalists, governed by an editorial policy. No conspiracies, no misinformation, no spam. Just news.

xtian 4y ago
What about when the journalists push conspiracy theories? (e.g., Russiagate)
- jaredwiener 4y ago
  We have an editorial policy that I'd invite you to look at: https://www.forth.news/docs/editorial https://www.forth.news/docs/editorial But basically, we cant be a truth telling machine. We can, however, filter out the obvious noise and hold our journalist partners accountable if we find issues with their reporting. We speak with every reporter who onboards to the site, and reach out when needed.
  - xtian 4y ago
    How will you try to find issues? Many claims are made and accepted as true in the media without any verifiable facts to back them up. There's an inherently political valence to which claims receive this treatment at every level (national, geopolitical, etc).
    - jaredwiener 4y ago
      That claim itself sounds like it could use some verification to back it up. That said, this is why we vet journalists as they come on. We cannot guarantee that no one will ever get something wrong, but we can limit how often it happens. On Twitter/HN/etc, anyone can post anything and face little to no consequences -- thats how trolling can happen. Journalists have bylines attached, and those mess ups can haunt them the rest of their careers. They don't want to get things wrong. We don't want them to get things wrong either. And if something is wrong, then we put out a correction.
  - doublepg23 4y ago
    Have you reached out to Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal? They’ve been some of the few upstanding journalists in media.
    - jaredwiener 4y ago
      We have not; though I believe they take a little more of a position than we're comfortable with -- we're looking for straight reporting, without opinion. Any journalists who are interested should reach out -- https://journalists.forth.news https://journalists.forth.news
  - latency-guy2 4y ago
    > hold our journalist partners accountable What does this exactly mean? I personally don't think a journalist is "held accountable" if all that's being done is an email to them asking for a correction or clarification in an article.
    - yencabulator 4y ago
      Generally, corrections and retractions are the responsibility of the editor, not the individual journalist (of course, the editor can delegate the work, but they're still responsible for it). The mechanism and its working is pretty well established, by now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper)
dannyisaphantom 4y ago
I was just browsing your site a few days ago; did you just push a UI update? It looks a lot better and is a lot more relaxing on the eyes (eye strain) that it was before. Looks great.
- jaredwiener 4y ago
  Thank you! Great to hear
mc32 4y ago
Is it not difficult to know whether a conspiracy theory ends up being a conspiracy or on the other hand a belief ending up being an actual conspiracy and the only tool to suss things out is the passage of time? We will likely not have certainty on the JFK assassination, unless the remaining sealed docs have relevant info.
willis936 4y ago
Not all journalism is created equal. I've found that NYT's The Daily coverage of SVB has been rife with misinformation and editorialization. They picked a controversial narrative du jour and expected the listeners to be stupid enough to believe whatever lies or spin they say.

timr 4y ago

> The vast, vast majority of yesterday's conspiracy theories remain just conspiracy theories, and the vast majority of today's likely will as well. Maybe! You have no way of knowing which ones. > I'd be perfectly comfortable having anything that looks like a conspiracy theory hidden To rephrase: you'd be happy to have anything that makes you feel like it's a conspiracy theory hidden from view. A perfect way to guarantee confirmation bias. I suggest the alternative approach: if you aren't willing to keep an open enough mind to consider new evidence that challenges your assumptions, don't have an opinion. > with enough evidence having accumulated for it to get covered in a non-mocking way by NYT or NPR or whatever As a side note: if you think this is an objective standard for reliable evidence, you're in over your head. Just judging based on their commentary concerning topics in which I am an expert, neither is a reliable source of "blind faith" information. Danger, Will Robinson.

jaredwiener 4y ago
You can follow the Sagan Standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard) "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
- whiddershins 4y ago
  Unfortunately we aren’t so great at evaluating what an extraordinary claim is.
  - jaredwiener 4y ago
    This is sort of why journalism is an actual profession. Editors do this, or at least are supposed to. Listening to everything everyone says can have its upsides, but filtering out noise is not one of them.
    - whiddershins 4y ago
      Thats ... why on earth would I think any of the people involved in journalism are better at this than I am? That's not remotely their job description.