Skip to main content


User Verified Fake News Moderation System Idea

This entry was edited (1 year ago)
How will the fact check be conducted? Is it enough to attach a link to the "official" source?
Which sources will be considered reliable - British, USAmerican, Russian or Vietnamese?
As i understand it, this system will allows you to check the "officiallity" of the news, but not their "fakesty".
This is a user run verification system. The person submitting a post for fact check is providing the information. I could even submit my own post to be fact checked to get user votes on it so it can be user verified. Others could do the same initially or subsequently if new information is available countering the original user verification. If my original post provides a link to factual information, it is not as likely to be flagged. Will people attempt to game the system? Sure they will. But the ability to have subsequent fact check requests puts the power back into the hands of users to counter the gaming.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
@Shelenn Ayres i do not understand how will the fact check be conducted.
How is the "fact check team" different from ordinary experts? Why their checking could be trusted?
Clearly you misunderstand the original post. Perhaps someone else can help explain it. Your reference to neoliberal is a clue to your perspective. This idea is entirely apolitical with full transparency and fairness on all sides.

Science requires peer review and repeatable experiments to validate results. Pseudo- or fringe science (they are the same thing) is defined as science that is not valid so if that is challenged by peer reviewed science and accepted fact, the fact check team decides which is fact and which is fiction. Otherwise, expert services have to be paid for, admin salaries have to be funded because the time and labor is excessive interfering with their ability to pay bills, and users will not be able to use services for free without ads or other monetization (which is antithetical to the free social network concept).
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
I love this idea and one of my delusions of grandeur is to make an argument forum that can resolve all but intractable arguments. However, please be advised...

In all human history a cycle exists:
  • A Society or Group forms for a common good to protect itself from some greater harm to its members.
  • This group attains some modicum of power and/or influence to do good for its members.
  • Corrupt nefarious entities recognize and desire that power.
  • Said corrupt entities usurp control of the system or cause chaos within the system to redirect its effectiveness for selfish antisocial reasons.
  • goto 1
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
Yes we know human nature. The idea is to be transparent putting the power in the hands of the users. My idea is general enough to address potential gaming of the system which in turn is addressed by subsequent flagging. Something is better than nothing at this point. Currently, admins have the power to control users without public redress. Users have the power to move or create their own node. However, admins have the power to block entire nodes as well. This is a private space but most admins like myself would like it to be monitored by the community and not a single admin. Policies have to be enforced if they exist and that requires a lot of labor to read every post as a node grows (in addition to administrative labor and costs to provide the service for others to use for free). It is not feasible to expect any admin to have time to review and address every single post even on a small node. My idea is to crowdsource in a fully transparent manner that would be spelled out in the terms.
@Shelenn Ayres
Clearly you misunderstand the original post.
I ask you to clarify to me what i did not understand.
Perhaps someone else can help explain it.
Your last sentence is an invitation to discuss and clarify. I appeal to you, Shelenn.
Your reference to neoliberal is a clue to your perspective. This idea is entirely apolitical with full transparency and fairness on all sides.
If this is so, then i ask you not to be irresponsible, and directly answer the questions that i asked you in the previous message (about fringe science and Western Academies).
And i also ask you to fulfill my request - to carry out a test "check the facts" of the link - which i left to you about vaccination. Using your method.

I am fulfilling your request for "Any critiques, ideas". Please reciprocate me and fulfill my request and answer the questions. Please do not be irresponsible. Thank you in advance for this.
Asking to carry out a test makes it clear you do not understand the original post. My attempts to clarify have failed. It does seem there may be a language barrier no offense intended. Reading the posts from ivan it is clear some translation is involved.

If anyone else who better understands the original post, and speaks ivan's native language, wants to help ivan understand it would be greatly appreciated. Ivan your questions have been answered, a test is not feasible and irrelevant to the original post, and with this system, you would optionally be able like any other user to join the "fact check team" so that your vote counts. Crowd sourcing also helps the crowd learn facts and prevents the spread of fake news.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
While I believe you do not intend to offend me, you are. I do not intend to offend you, but apparently I am. This is directly related to cultural differences and a language barrier that became obvious to me in your sentence structure that English is not your first language. You do very well but there are some obvious meanings getting lost in translation. I am deferring to others who may better understand the original post who speak your native language as a way to avoid further offense. I cannot provide a test of a system that does not exist. The way the system is intended to work is presented and clarified with many examples and being discussed. Quoting me out of context is not helpful.
@Shelenn Ayres you again ignored my questions, very sorry.

You invite to criticism and ideas, i fulfilled your request.

So in result i offended you with this. Sorry for that.

But this is not a constructive discussion, it is some kind of emotion.
I don't really have time for this, but Ivan, I believe initially you were asking Shelenn to perform a service with a system that does not yet exist.
Can i ask you for an experiment to do fact-check for...

And to perform the non-existent service on content that has been widely debunked for a long time now.

Your dialogue on this thread doesn't seem to have an attitude of productive collaboration. I could be wrong.

People can produce their own proof of Russell's Teapot very rapidly in this modern age of Photoshop. Unverifiable claims are fictional on their face. e.g. you can open any physics book and reproduce the experiments yourself to verify them, but claims in holy books cannot be reproduced so they are unverifiable.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
You made me think of a work queue with that last post. Also, are you using the word posted as the top node of the thread, and submitted as comments linked to the top node?

So a work queue of posts to check would be formed by any member of any status flagging a Post or Submission and anybody with fact-check status can put their time in on evaluating that queue. Within the queue, any member that's a potential "carrier" (human virus), i.e. a person with many followers, would have higher priority and so be worked on first.
OH that sounds like a good idea setting priority by potential views!

On the other question, I originally hadn't thought of comment posts - only top posts. But I suppose comment posts should be subject to fact check submissions as well if we are to be thorough.
Appreciate your thoughts. I do think you might be overthinking it since the vast majority of posts will not be submitted for fact checking. I do think we should add another result though based your inputs. Rather than simply is it true or is it fake news. We will have to include opinion because sometimes articles are simply that - opinion and not fact. So it can be reverted to opinion if the team determines it is neither fact nore fake news. This covers the lazy journalism and people attempting to game the system.