Topic: Mass media manipulation - Rating system as way out to freedom ? (Read 126 times)

I was thinking about the problem of fake news moderation on a trustless decentralized social media network.

The best idea I saw so far was something like the Aragon Court where you have 'moderators' staking tokens so that those who go against consensus are penalized and those that go with are rewarded - thus people are incentivized to rule in a way which they believe the population will or abstain. 

But the problem is that things like politics are so polarized you will often see splits down the middle.  Not only that people are human and emotion driven and tend to 'not do their research'.  Aragon Court only works when there are situations where most people will agree on some moderation task... 

Curious what others think about this task since fake news sucks (false data, not just some opinion you don't agree with).

Lol. And I'm sure the moderators of this hypothetical website would never collaborate with corporations and the government.

The people who control modern media platforms are ultra-rich, and will tend to favour content that promotes their own self-interest. But this has generally been the case with traditional media, too. It's just somewhat more of an issue now partly because the sources are more atomised, and partly because the pace has picked up, because web news is right now.

I'm not sure what the answer is. You will never have rigorous impartial oversight over a web news source that works almost in real time. And retrospective punishment for the dissemination of fake news would only affect the more legitimate sites. Some of the crazy lone-wolf BADecker sites would just shut up and open somewhere else, faster than you can police. Maybe some sort of quality certification could be applied to impartial, truthful news, kind of the opposite to the "this guy talks crap" tag that Twitter used to attach to Trump posts before they banned him. I imagine even that though would only have limited effect.

I agree.

The problems of media aren't monopolies anymore. Its the same issue that you have with politicians. You get the leaders that the society produces. So you get the reporters and media houses that the society produces.

This is truly a big problem that needs to be solved. Being as it is for the greater good and not necessarily for profit-motive, there is no reason to believe that something like this can attract the money and talent pool needed to fulfill this. For example, nothing stops someone from training an AI to differentiate between fake videos, old videos being spread as new events, photoshopped images etc. These are just the very basic and recognizable methods. Nobody is spending on the tech to do that. The much harder issue that you propose to address using something of a blockchain is of trolls and social engineering with paid bots and accounts. That can never be done because a bunch of people and parties whose full-time job is to create narratives will always succeed in doing so.

You need IoT level of solutions where everything from the recording to the production of a media report is monitored and recorded for correctness of procedure using a blockchain. All such systems can be imagined and even implemented. But why would someone do that when they are already earning enough by creating narratives and manipulating public opinion.

Despite the pessimism expressed in my reply and by other posters, I still feel that creating a truly verifiable source of news is indeed possible. All it needs is money. Maybe the Bitcoin rich would do something about it. But judging how wealth corrupts almost everyone, we'd be foolish to pin such hopes and anybody else but our own selves.

I am doing things same way as you described. I don't even have facebook account and google regstration is just because of youtube addon to multimedia centre. And I am happy that I am not alone and there are other people like I am, but I think that it is minority of people just like we are. The project you described is really good theoretically, but if it will be used just by minority I am afraid that majority of people will be manipulated to not use it at all (by gov, big tech companies etc). And in nowadays it is majority what matters.

My thesis is that with decent mass adoption, statistically you would have reliable rating scores.
I put here an analogy with Poker. Knowing the game, odds probs and tactics you will always in the LONG RUN, have profits. you may handed with a shitty cards or get screwed in the flop, but overtime, the system works.

Same applies here.

system could have moderators to control bots or drama queens as you explain. Although you risk to be manipulating peoples opinion. risky there.

In my opinion, you only need mass adoption to achieve good rating level. as another analogy, think on reviews on Amazon. Yeah first reviews of a new product are normally family or friends. But overtime you will get reasonably good/fair rating.

The problem here underlays in the trouble of gaining peoples attention to value/content website. and demystify the legacy media for once and for all.

Having Google/facebook and big techs blocking you may be a hurdle. hands down. But I tell you, when I want to read the news I type in the banner directly the website I want. I don't go to google, or search engines. You know where you want to go.

The idealist wonder here is> dont we feel obliged to do something? Are we letting it happen? I cant go to sleep when I think about it really.
There has to be a formula. There has to.

seems OP wants to make reddit.. only issue is not about a system of rating, commenting, editing.. but the problem is that any such system ends up getting highjacked by trolls wanting to social dramatise and create their own cults of mis-information.

a good rating system first needs good researchers/fact checkers. and a way to ensure social drama queens dont upvote stuff because it entertains them and pokes at their sci-fi craving for fantasy

eg.. even this topic creator thinks rogan is a 'news source' and doesnt understand rogans leaning for satire and entertaining the ufo lover crowd

Maybe I should specify little bit. The rates and comments is good idea to filter usefull and garbage, but only when you are already visiting web. I was thinking that govs blame web for being conspiracy by purpose to reduce credibility of it as whole. Search engines censorship is just next step of this, whole web will have generally a bad reputation in the society. Various comments linking to it will be deleted from social media platforms etc. etc. and majority won't even visit it at all. In some countries it will be even blocked.

Don't you love talking big government liberals into a corner?  They are so hell bent on pushing their agendas that their own talking points are dangerous warnings.  Imagine thinking the government wants the population to be dumb so it is easier to control, and then saying they should control our healthcare and tax the rich to pay for further growth and dependency of these "dumb" people.  If you believe the government is trying to dumb down and control the population, stop advocating for a larger government and more taxes.  It's really that simple, but don't expect the braindead Trump hurt me crowd to accept reality anytime soon.  They can't even figure out which bathroom to use...

Who would want what? Education or stupid people?

Barely anyone wants education, it's hard, boring, and seems largely useless when you're in school.

Basically anyone in a position of power wants stupid people, from politicians to corporate suits (well, at least for the consumption of their trinkets; they may need a few smart people to produce said trinkets).

A fairly recent trend seems to be that people nowhere near positions of power also disparage education for reasons that baffle me. It used to be the #1 tool for upward mobility and it still is, but apparently it's now more appealing to remain dumb and poor than to put some effort into moving up.

This is why I don't think the OP's suggested effort would do any better than the existing sources of information. Anyone who is willing to spend more than 15 seconds and can consciously decide "now I'm going to learn something new" already knows where to find what they need. All others... horse and water problem.

Who would want that?

Sample 1 - frontpage?

https://imgur.com/a/V6a9QmP

Sample 2 - news page

https://imgur.com/a/fZOccfE


Pretty basic huh, but just to give an idea

Hi all

thanks for your inputs. I have been whole day working so gotta catch up now with this.
Love your constructive comments.

I am probably too idealist thinking people would lean towards the idea of having quality content, rather than instant-injection of dopamine by a catchy headline...I think though this is because people is still asleep. Haven´t gone thru the awakening yet. Lets be honest they do a great job there.
The way I see your points of view¨

1. Organization wise...a DAO with distributed ownership should do the trick. On a latter stage you could tokenize a % of the platform to monetize and create tokenholder value. This is a fundamental issue that will resonate in coming generations. I resist to think there aren't a handful of people skilled enough that are willing to try something like this.

2. Citizens biological and psychological behavior: current social aparatus is built on fear and Nihilism. Fear creates a feeling of despair and an uncontrolled need of safety. With current mass media bombarding fearmongering news, people is currently having a permanent state of psychosis. Which then is suddenly faded away by an absolute feeling of pleasure: Smartphones.
How do we eliminate the mass feeling of fear, and generate enough traction towards fact based unbiased news.
I believe we should find some feature in the platform that incentivizes Truth. something like a reward. Its clear you cannot gain traction simply by expecting people to realize how rigged the world is. ..

Suchmoon indicates that people pays little or no attention to news. Just 15 sec headlines and I could not agree more. Its called hyperbolic discounting, and these headline know it pretty well. People working 9 to Xh, just want something entertaining.
How the do we make real facts and truth cool? How do we make it appealing? I dont have the answer but we can debate.

3. Agree education is the foundation and the fundamental problem here. But since this is hugely manipulated by Congress.,.little we can do here unfortunately.

4. Figliar0 mentions that this would be considered as a conspiracy theory webpage. But I dont see it that way. Since every news, bad or good could be posted there. Hence also rates, rebutted, commented etc
Agree on the part social medias and search engines would just censor it. That's a huge roadblocker.


Perhaps the appealing part of this idea is that you dont have to go to Google news, or NYT or sport news to look what you are after. You just go to this place and filter what you want to see. Then filter by 4 stars or more.
It would be a challenge to control porn, russian bots, and all that, but that's not impossible

I just made a 5 year old power point example but dont know how to paste it here. give me some minutes

Yes I agree with you, this is a great idea but I think it is difficult to realize and the government and all the big people as well as news media companies will surely oppose to this idea. And who will take their time to create this anonymous-founded platform and sustain it without stake holder? It is too complicated.

     I understand your idea and the genuine heart for the greater good but sad to say, this is really impossible. It would hardly be taken seriously and even if it does get a bit famous, it'll only end up being manipulated as well. The last thing we'd need right now is another big tool for manipulation being made. What should be pushed though is the attitude of wanting to verify everything before believing nor spreading. And the best way for this is to start with yourself, and the people near you.

That's a new and cool idea but, there is a side to it that would pose a problem. The side of who can post contents on it, who can or should have access to this contents (with regards to age restrictions) and what sort of content would be posted in this site.

Despite the voting and all that, there is a possibility that some persons would want to post some contents that would be undermining, looking at the decentralized nature of it and should contents be moderated by anyone, it is actually making a centralized system out of it and so, how would this help.

Citizens can already choose to consume unbiased news sources. The thing is, many of them choose content that confirms their own biases, because clickbait and fear porn works really well with our 15-second attention spans.

Education would be the long term answer - critical thinking etc - but that's very boring and can't be solved by a tech startup. Stupid people are easier to mold into preferred shapes so I would assume that less education is going to be the trend going forward.

Well. Good idea, but...

This new web will be simple considered as conspirational media. Every social media will censore it, some biggest search enginess will not index it etc. How do you want to prevent this? And what do you expect to happen, when some gov will ask to delete some comments and articles?

I understand your sarcasm, and yeah that's right... probably too idealist...
probably too dumb to think something like that could work

any idea on what as citizens we could do to overcome such fundamental issue?
one thing I am sure, and it is that something has to change

What a novel idea. No one has ever done a website where people can rate articles or comment on them or post their own articles. And nothing could possibly go wrong with that because everyone would be totally rational and honest on such an anonymous platform.