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.

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

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

Hi there
I recently posted something similar in Coronavirus thread, but I thought that It could be worthwhile opening up a side thread for this topic.


There is a threat to humanity in current media platforms. They are monopoly-owned by a few, which control the news feed. They decide whats a hot topic, they decide whats the narrative, and they decide what to censor.

The problem is that the average person only goes to trusted journals to feed up their daily anxiety of news. So they end up unconsciously biased to a controlled pre selected narrative by reading CNN, WSJ, NYT..etc. Current system:

1. Does not Foster discussion, debate and critical thinking
2. Does not guarantee non corporate and political inference
3. Mute facts that support other ways of thinking

WHAT IF, similar to Bitcoin, we could create an anonymous-founded platform where people will be able to vote-rate news articles, can add news as rebuttals, make comments... to already existing news. (WSJ, NYT, Le monde...etc).
Imagine like a consolidated site of news coming from different platform, and all being scrutinized by the community. Maybe we could create a veracity logo if has 4 stars or more.

Thinking on having probably a dashboard of news which have link previews (similar to what Twitter or Whatsapp does when pasted an URL).
as user you would go in everyday and filter news by veracity, rating, rebuttals and subjects or hashtags.
Imagine we could do the same for the journalists..

this way we could make journal organizations and journalists accountable for misuse of power. Essentially we may see that independent articles like i.e. from MEdium are actually better rated and more viewed that the headline of the NYT.

any thoughts? too idealist?
i dont know, i think could solve a lot of problems

Thinking on something like creating a webpage where any user could create a link preview (similar to the one Whatsapp or Twitter creates when you past an URL).
then people could vote (1-5 stars), could add articles as rebuttals (counterarguments), and whatever other features it could have.

I am thinking we could even rate the journalist itself.

If you were to send a link to a friend via chat, I would rather have the rating first just to see if its worthwhile reading it.

Imagine that when filtering by Corona virus and 5 stars articles, we see top rated are actually non-supportive-narrative articles and scientific-based news. hmm...

Guys

aren't we just seeing the biggest orchestrated narrative of all times while mass population supports it?

I think big or most part has to do with mass media controlled by a few. It is then easy to cancel any idea or fact that deviates. i.e. Joe Rogan using Ivermectin.

what if we could create a Mass media rating system? where all articles in the main journals could be scrutinize, disputed and even rebutted with counter-articles?

God damn, I dont know but this would expose their idiocity while holding them accountable for misuse of power and mass manipulation.